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 -
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
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.
---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.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
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:
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).
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).
Monday, February 11, 2008
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.
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)
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.
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.
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. . .
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. . .
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Susan Stanton in the Whirlwind of Separatist Controversy
Susan Stanton, the transitioning transsexual woman who first became the subject of the news media when she was fired from her job as City Manager by government officials in Largo, Florida, was quoted in an article I found on Google, in The Ledger (a newspaper published in Polk County, Florida) on January 4, 2008 in an article - you can find it at:
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080104/NEWS/801040352/1023
However, the article first appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on December 31, 2007 - here is the URL for that (it did not come up in my Google search, while The Ledger article did):
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/31/Life/Susan_Stanton_s_lonel.shtml
Here is the section with the quote:
Now, I have it from someone who actually spoke with Susan that she states that she was actually misquoted - and here is a link to Susan's own website that indicates the same:
http://www.susanastanton.com/What_America_Said_and_Saw.html
(And an excerpt for those who don't want to click, or in the event the URL gets stale . . . ):
There is more, a lot more.
Personally, I think Susan Stanton's explanation is pretty clear, and as someone who has been misquoted in the media myself, quite believable.
(And I think it’s likely that she said was that the *general public* sees all of us as "men in dresses, frauds and deceivers." (and somehow that morphed into what ended up in print.)
While my initial reaction to the St. Petersburg Times article was to characterize Susan from that picture as a "transsexual separatist," it really doesn't necessarily appear to be the case.
(For a picture of what transsexual separatism looks like, one can visit
http://ts-si.org/
and take a look – but don’t expect the nice folks who operate that website to admit to anything like "transsexual separatism!" – just look for yourself and see it it looks, walks and quacks like a duck.)
Susan's explantation is nuanced - she does not reject the transgender "umbrella" but she believes that it takes education for people to understand that there is a diversity under that umbrella, and that Susan and those most like her are not "men in dresses."
The last of the quoted sentences is important - education of the general public is necessary. The problem is that doing the education faces problems from the Christianist conservatives whose misinterpretation of their own Bible makes the education an uphill battle.
Susan Stanton's nuance is one that does not rely on separatism. Unlike some of the advocacy one can see at that TS-Si site, it does not rely on a rigid belief that those who are post-op (or at least scheduled for surgery) are fundamentally differentand have no common ground with those who are unable to have surgery due to medical issues.
Making the achievement of SRS surgery the only dividing line between those that"have theirs" and those who don't, is an unfortunate oversimplification that harms a significant but tiny number of people with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) (This is the term currently in vogue for what is referred to as "Gender Identity Disorder" (GID) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) used in the psychiatric profession.
Having medical issues that make my surgery too much of a risk for any of the surgeons to undertake (I am ready to pay for it in the US, Canada or Thailand, I already have the mental health professionals certifying me, but none of the surgeons is willing to do it, even those in Thailand who don't require a surgery letter, because of my medical situation), I find myself on the "other side" of the artificial divide (encouraged by at least some of the columns at TS-Si) where surgery completion is advocated as the sole criterion for legal recogntion of one's correct sex identity.
All in all, I don't think that *anyone* should have to wait for legal recognition of our right to dignity and fair treatment as human beings with the reasonable accommodation of having legal sex assignment corrected in accordance with our established sex identity (those who aren't "educated" yet do have many resources to avail themselves of already to learn about this), I can understand (while disagreeing with) Susan's pragmatism regarding the HRC willingness to allow "gender identity" to be dropped from ENDA.
There has been a lot of angry critical reaction from segments of the"trans" community to the original article, and even some severe criticism of the explanation.
I think it shows pretty well that even "under the umbrella" not everyone marches in lock-step to a particular tune, or applies a single "Transgender party line."It could also show that there are alternatives to the rather strict "surgery first before legal correction" standpoint that appears to be taken in some columns and other writings at the TS-Si site (and in other forums) - and that these (like mine) shouldn't be dismissed, as someone commented over at TS-Si in response to a comment I made to one of the articles published there) as"The rest of her [i.e. my] posting(s) are just more of the same TG party line donkey dung."
So, the bottom line question is "what can we learn from all this?"
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080104/NEWS/801040352/1023
However, the article first appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on December 31, 2007 - here is the URL for that (it did not come up in my Google search, while The Ledger article did):
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/31/Life/Susan_Stanton_s_lonel.shtml
Here is the section with the quote:
Susan has met hundreds of other people like her. She was among the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people lobbying for a law that would make it illegal for others to discriminate against them.But Susan has said all along that she's not like other transgender people. She feels uncomfortable even looking at some,"like I'm seeing a bunch of men in dresses."Eventually, she decided it was too early for transgender people to be federally protected. People need more time, more education, she says. "The transgender groups boo me, now, when I speak. Isn't that ironic?" But I don't blame the human rights groups from separating the transgender people from the protected groups. Most Americans aren't ready for us yet, " Susan says. Transgender people need to be able to prove they're still viable workers, especially in the mainstream."The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies' rooms will be invaded by guys in drag," Susan says, "instead of someone like me."
Now, I have it from someone who actually spoke with Susan that she states that she was actually misquoted - and here is a link to Susan's own website that indicates the same:
http://www.susanastanton.com/What_America_Said_and_Saw.html
(And an excerpt for those who don't want to click, or in the event the URL gets stale . . . ):
"I was shocked and disappointed when I read the recent article in the St. Petersburg Times entitled "Susan Stanton’s Lonely Transformation". The St. Petersburg Times is an excellent newspaper and I consider Ms. Lane DeGregory to be a gifted writer and a personal friend so I am not sure how my words could have been so terribly misunderstood. ""During the last year, I have had a very unique opportunity to become acquainted with many members of the transgender community and the wide diversity of life experiences. Contrary to the St. Petersburg Times article, I do not see members of the transgender community as "men wearing dresses." However, I do feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding by the general public that being transgender is simply a matter of men wanting to "dress up as women." Most people do not understand the medical nature of being a transgender and therefore cannot understand the need or justification for non-discrimination protection in employment and housing. During the extensive discussions associated with my termination, many reasonable people felt it was irresponsible conduct for a government official to be "dressing up in women’s clothes" let alone expect to someday "come to work in drag." In my extensive discussion with the national media, transgender people are still perceived to be living unhealthy lifestyles inconsistent with family values. It is my belief that
until the general public is properly educated on the diversity of gender identification and expression, attempts at passing comprehensive federal legislation prohibiting discrimination will not have the necessary support in Congress."
There is more, a lot more.
Personally, I think Susan Stanton's explanation is pretty clear, and as someone who has been misquoted in the media myself, quite believable.
(And I think it’s likely that she said was that the *general public* sees all of us as "men in dresses, frauds and deceivers." (and somehow that morphed into what ended up in print.)
While my initial reaction to the St. Petersburg Times article was to characterize Susan from that picture as a "transsexual separatist," it really doesn't necessarily appear to be the case.
(For a picture of what transsexual separatism looks like, one can visit
http://ts-si.org/
and take a look – but don’t expect the nice folks who operate that website to admit to anything like "transsexual separatism!" – just look for yourself and see it it looks, walks and quacks like a duck.)
Susan's explantation is nuanced - she does not reject the transgender "umbrella" but she believes that it takes education for people to understand that there is a diversity under that umbrella, and that Susan and those most like her are not "men in dresses."
The last of the quoted sentences is important - education of the general public is necessary. The problem is that doing the education faces problems from the Christianist conservatives whose misinterpretation of their own Bible makes the education an uphill battle.
Susan Stanton's nuance is one that does not rely on separatism. Unlike some of the advocacy one can see at that TS-Si site, it does not rely on a rigid belief that those who are post-op (or at least scheduled for surgery) are fundamentally differentand have no common ground with those who are unable to have surgery due to medical issues.
Making the achievement of SRS surgery the only dividing line between those that"have theirs" and those who don't, is an unfortunate oversimplification that harms a significant but tiny number of people with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) (This is the term currently in vogue for what is referred to as "Gender Identity Disorder" (GID) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) used in the psychiatric profession.
Having medical issues that make my surgery too much of a risk for any of the surgeons to undertake (I am ready to pay for it in the US, Canada or Thailand, I already have the mental health professionals certifying me, but none of the surgeons is willing to do it, even those in Thailand who don't require a surgery letter, because of my medical situation), I find myself on the "other side" of the artificial divide (encouraged by at least some of the columns at TS-Si) where surgery completion is advocated as the sole criterion for legal recogntion of one's correct sex identity.
All in all, I don't think that *anyone* should have to wait for legal recognition of our right to dignity and fair treatment as human beings with the reasonable accommodation of having legal sex assignment corrected in accordance with our established sex identity (those who aren't "educated" yet do have many resources to avail themselves of already to learn about this), I can understand (while disagreeing with) Susan's pragmatism regarding the HRC willingness to allow "gender identity" to be dropped from ENDA.
There has been a lot of angry critical reaction from segments of the"trans" community to the original article, and even some severe criticism of the explanation.
I think it shows pretty well that even "under the umbrella" not everyone marches in lock-step to a particular tune, or applies a single "Transgender party line."It could also show that there are alternatives to the rather strict "surgery first before legal correction" standpoint that appears to be taken in some columns and other writings at the TS-Si site (and in other forums) - and that these (like mine) shouldn't be dismissed, as someone commented over at TS-Si in response to a comment I made to one of the articles published there) as"The rest of her [i.e. my] posting(s) are just more of the same TG party line donkey dung."
So, the bottom line question is "what can we learn from all this?"
we have to be careful when being quoted by the news media; and perhaps have a strategy for what to do when news coverage goes wrong – and when we read the newspaper, or get "news" from other media – we have to remember that even in the bast cases, only about a quarter of what is provided as "news" is actually factual;
the "trans community has to continue educational efforts aimed at both legislators and the general public – when we do the educating, and I really do think it is necessary to educate, we have to make it absolutely clear that while there is a whole range or spectrum of differences within the community of people who don't fit *exactly* as expected by society into its societal expectation of binary sex and gender, that there are basic human rights that should not be denied on the basis of that single common factor of not completely fitting into that societal expectation. There are, in addition, possibly different levels of "reasonable accommodation" of any of our various forms of not fitting in (even those of us who strive to fit in to the "opposite" sex from birth assignment, do not fit in perfectly), that may or may not apply across the board - and we should all be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those in our communities whose self-identity is not identical or extremely similar to our own. The problem is going to be getting the *very* binary-oriented society to recognize that not everyone fits into the binary in accordance with expectations. Some fit in opposite those expectations and some fit in some ways into both, or don't fit at all well into either one.- we need to get what it is that we are teaching to be consistent. In a discussion group I participate in, one of the members wrote: "Drag Queens and Transsexual women are very different animals." That is not necesarily or entirely true - it depends on the definitions of the terms. I do happen to know some transsexual women (not all of them pre-op, either), who have found employment in doing "drag" performance to be a better option than anything else available to them. At the same time, I think I understand that member's intended point. A male-identified gay man who dresses up as a woman for fun and perhaps profit, is *not* the same as a trans woman who identifies as a heterosexual woman, even if she is pre-op and even if she works in the same drag club (meaning that if you were to just *look* at them, their bodies might be nearly identical - their minds, however, are not), and even if both of them are attracted to men (one as a hay man, the other as a straight, but trans, woman).Part of the problem is that the less-than-fully-educated in society see that the bodies in that example are "the same" (at least what they can see -I'm not saying anything about BSTc or other things in this example) and would treat both as "men." Others who need education would be those who might be happy aligning things solely on whether people can "pass." (The result there would be the marginalization or ghettoization, or worse, of post-op TS women and men who don't "pass" well.) There are several minefields in the education process - one example is the situation where SRS is pushed as the *only* bright line to use for the correction of the sex assigned on identity papers. This approach marginalizes those who cannot have the necessary surgical procedures for medical or other valid reasons, but who have the appropriate self-identity. The British Gender Recognition Act permits correction of sex based on having had SRS, but also allows correction in cases where SRS is not medically advisable. (A similar 2006 proposal for New York City birth cerificate correction was tabled because of concerns over conflict with the then-forthcoming federal Real ID Act regulations).We all need access to appropriate medical care, not just for transition-related issues.We all need protection in the traditional areas of human rights - employment, housing, access to public accommodations, credit, etc. (though there mat be reasonable differences in exactly what the reasonable accommodation is going to be). Some of the more controversial ideas have to do with the binary itself. Society isn't going to abandon it altogether. But what it can do is recognize that it is not reflective of 100% of all reality - and allow for people to be "other" "both" and "neither" as well as "still the original assignment" or "opposite the original assignment;" and
Perhaps it is necessary for all of us to be aware of separatism within the trans community, and the possible deleterious effects of it (at the TS-Si site, for example, a comment to one article indicated that there were transsexual separatists working against the 2006 NYC Health Department proposal that would have made it possible for persons who couldn;t have sex reassignment surgery to have their birth certificates corrected; perhaps some are working against GENDA and other inclusive human rights legislation and regulatory amendments as well). Separatism is not only that of the post-op transsexual person who believes that rosurgery divides "real women (or men)" from "transgenders" – it includes those in the crossdressing community who see the people who seek surgical correction of their bodies to match their minds as being sick or delusional and that their surgeries are unnecessary. That is just as harmful.
Friday, November 9, 2007
The Democratic Side on the ENDA Debacle in the House
A review of the November 7, 2007 debate in the House of Representatives on H. Res. 793 to set up the rules for debate on H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, leads me to the following conclusions regarding the Democrats in the House (Republicans will be covered in a separate blog entry):
The carefully choreographed rule was designed to limit debate and to allow the introduction, brief discussion and withdrawal of the Baldwin Amendment to restore the protection for "gender identity" that had been stripped from the bill while it, or rather its predecessor, H.R. 2015, was in committee. This was a Kabuki-like dance of words designed only to bring the idea of protecting transgendered people from employment discrimination onto the floor of the House without permitting adequate timne for real debate, and no time at all for a vote.
As a result, there are perhaps only seven Democrats I can really count on for support, because they voted against the flawed bill on principle because it does almost nothing for anyone. They are: Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY), Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). I applaud their principled stand, while not condemning the principled stand taken by those other Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the flawed bill because they would not vote against any bill to extend civil rights to even part of an oppressed minority. Some of them expressed as much in their remarks on the House floor and some inserted their remarks into the Congressional Record. I can respect that position.
I am appalled by the lack of moral fiber on the part of the House leadership that arranged this piece of choreographed theater without giving the Baldwin Amendment a chance at a vote. I do not blame Rep. Tammy Baldwin, because I believe the only opportunity the leadership gave her when the rule for debate was crafted, was to permit the introduction of the Amendment on condition that it be withdrawn prior to a vote. It was reported that this became the Speaker’s strategy because a couple of conservative Democratic first-term Representatives went to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ask that there not be a vote. Rep. Baldwin would not have had the opportunity to introduce the Amendment without agreeing to ask for a withdrawal. I believe the failure to allow a vote was a serious tactical error, as bad an error as dropping the "gender identity" prpotection and watering down the "religious" loophole.
I am encouraged by the statements of Rep. Castor (D-FL), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Rep Welch (D-VT), Rep. Davis (D-CA), Rep. Moran (D-VA), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Rep. Langevin (D-RI), Rep. Stark ( ), Rep. Honda ( ), Rep. DeGette ( ), Rep. Waxman ( ), and Rep. Hirono ( ) (I plan to revisit this to get the states and fuller names for the imcomplete representatives).
Here are some of their trans-positive remarks, for those who wish to read but don;t want to poke around the Congressional Record:
Rep. Castor (D-FL): I do wish Ms. Baldwin would allow a vote on the amendment . I strongly support the amendment , as many of those in the Congress do. But this was her request, and this is the way the rule has been structured.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): The Baldwin amendment , which recognizes that transgendered Americans should have all of the protections and the rights of any person in America, should be included in this bill. It should include the Baldwin amendment . Because if we believe in who we are as a country, and if we believe that discrimination is wrong against anyone, then how in the world can we leave out a significant number of Americans in this bill? So, if it becomes law, transgendered Americans will still face discrimination in the workplace. And we must not let up until we ban discrimination against everyone.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. . . . Transgender Americans, because of a lack of familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford. And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too effeminate.'' . . . . When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that includes all the people who need its help.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): I am very concerned, as my Republican colleagues are, that the Baldwin amendment can be offered and pulled back without a vote, because if it was given a vote, I would vote for the Baldwin amendment.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): I rise in strong support of the underlying bill and the Baldwin amendment. . . . I strongly support providing protection from discrimination to transgender Americans, and I will not rest until their right to live their lives free of fear, discrimination, and intolerance is the law of this land.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ): Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of inclusive ENDA that provides employment protections for sexual orientation as well as gender identity, I am an original cosponsor of the original ENDA that was introduced earlier this year, the legislation we should be taking up today.
(Rep. Holt also added to the Congressional Record a letter from himself, Rep. Yvette Clark, Rep. Linda Sanchez, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, dissenting from H.R. 3685, though only two of them (Reps. Holt and Clark) actually voted against the flawed bill.)
Rep Welch (D-VT): "I am glad that the rule makes in order the amendment by Representative Baldwin to include ``gender identity'' protections in the bill. I urge all my colleagues to support the rule, support the Baldwin amendment , and support the underlying bill."
Rep. Davis (D-CA): I rise in support, but I am sorry we are not debating a more inclusive gender identity bill today, which I would have supported, and let me tell you why. Employment discrimination strikes at a fundamental American value, the right of each individual to do his or her job without facing unfair discrimination. Transgendered people are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups within the LGBT community.
Rep Moran (D-VA): As a sponsor of ENDA, I would have favored the further amendment by Congresswoman Baldwin , but the fact is that this is a civil rights struggle, and struggles take time.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): While ENDA's victory will represent an historic victory, I share the disappointment of TAMMY BALDWIN , BARNEY FRANK and others who support including protection for transgender individuals in ENDA.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA): . . . at the outset, I'd like to note that I did not vote for this bill in Committee, not because I don't support its goals--I do--but because I strongly believe that we could have done better by protecting more people from discrimination. That is why I am proud to support the amendment by my colleague from Wisconsin, that will add a prohibition against gender identity discrimination. This amendment is needed because protecting transgender people is the right thing to do. We're talking about a small group of people, but a group that faces tremendous discrimination and that deserves to be protected from workplace discrimination just as much as anybody else. Now that this bill is out of committee and on the floor, let me be clear, I will vote for it because it extends a basic right to millions of Americans. And that right is the right to go to work and earn a living.
Rep. Langevin (D-RI): I also want to voice my strong support for an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin , which would prevent discrimination based on gender identity. Rhode Island is one of 12 States that protect gender identity in employment, and our experience has been a positive one. Transgender individuals often have their own set of challenges in the workplace, and we must ensure that their rights are protected as well. I am deeply disappointed that the underlying bill does not include gender identity, especially as I am a cosponsor of a fully inclusive ENDA.
Rep. Stark ( ): No job applicant should be discriminated against because of his or her race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation--or sexual orientation or gender identity. . . . This legislation succeeds in advancing civil rights. However, it still falls short of what needs to be accomplished. By no means is this bill as inclusive as it should be. It fails to include gender identity as a protected class. I commend Congresswoman BALDWIN for her efforts to include the transgender community in today's legislation. Had her amendment reached a vote on the House floor, I would have proudly supported it.
Rep Honda ( ): Sadly, more inclusive language was narrowed to exclude the most vulnerable, least understood group within the LGBT community, transgender men and women. I congratulate Representative BALDWIN on offering an amendment to re-insert this wording into the underlying bill and I proudly support her effort. Although this amendment was withdrawn, I was prepared to vote in its favor.
Rep. DeGette ( ): I will cast my vote with deep regret the trangendered community has been denied the protections offered to gays and lesbians in this bill. I did not support its removal from the overall legislation and am extremely disappointed that it will not be included when the House passes H.R. 3685.
Rep. Waxman ( ): As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2015, a more comprehensive version of this legislation, I am disappointed that H.R. 3685 does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity. I strongly support the amendment Representative Baldwin will offer to include gender identity in H.R. 3685 and if that amendment is not adopted, I pledge to work for an ENDA that includes gender identity.
Rep. Hirono: As an original cosponsor of the original ENDA, H.R. 2015, I am glad to be able to have this opportunity to debate the BALDWIN amendment to include anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals. It is unfortunate that political realities made it difficult to bring an inclusive ENDA to the floor today in the first place.
The carefully choreographed rule was designed to limit debate and to allow the introduction, brief discussion and withdrawal of the Baldwin Amendment to restore the protection for "gender identity" that had been stripped from the bill while it, or rather its predecessor, H.R. 2015, was in committee. This was a Kabuki-like dance of words designed only to bring the idea of protecting transgendered people from employment discrimination onto the floor of the House without permitting adequate timne for real debate, and no time at all for a vote.
As a result, there are perhaps only seven Democrats I can really count on for support, because they voted against the flawed bill on principle because it does almost nothing for anyone. They are: Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY), Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). I applaud their principled stand, while not condemning the principled stand taken by those other Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the flawed bill because they would not vote against any bill to extend civil rights to even part of an oppressed minority. Some of them expressed as much in their remarks on the House floor and some inserted their remarks into the Congressional Record. I can respect that position.
I am appalled by the lack of moral fiber on the part of the House leadership that arranged this piece of choreographed theater without giving the Baldwin Amendment a chance at a vote. I do not blame Rep. Tammy Baldwin, because I believe the only opportunity the leadership gave her when the rule for debate was crafted, was to permit the introduction of the Amendment on condition that it be withdrawn prior to a vote. It was reported that this became the Speaker’s strategy because a couple of conservative Democratic first-term Representatives went to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ask that there not be a vote. Rep. Baldwin would not have had the opportunity to introduce the Amendment without agreeing to ask for a withdrawal. I believe the failure to allow a vote was a serious tactical error, as bad an error as dropping the "gender identity" prpotection and watering down the "religious" loophole.
I am encouraged by the statements of Rep. Castor (D-FL), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Rep Welch (D-VT), Rep. Davis (D-CA), Rep. Moran (D-VA), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Rep. Langevin (D-RI), Rep. Stark ( ), Rep. Honda ( ), Rep. DeGette ( ), Rep. Waxman ( ), and Rep. Hirono ( ) (I plan to revisit this to get the states and fuller names for the imcomplete representatives).
Here are some of their trans-positive remarks, for those who wish to read but don;t want to poke around the Congressional Record:
Rep. Castor (D-FL): I do wish Ms. Baldwin would allow a vote on the amendment . I strongly support the amendment , as many of those in the Congress do. But this was her request, and this is the way the rule has been structured.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): The Baldwin amendment , which recognizes that transgendered Americans should have all of the protections and the rights of any person in America, should be included in this bill. It should include the Baldwin amendment . Because if we believe in who we are as a country, and if we believe that discrimination is wrong against anyone, then how in the world can we leave out a significant number of Americans in this bill? So, if it becomes law, transgendered Americans will still face discrimination in the workplace. And we must not let up until we ban discrimination against everyone.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. . . . Transgender Americans, because of a lack of familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford. And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too effeminate.'' . . . . When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that includes all the people who need its help.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): I am very concerned, as my Republican colleagues are, that the Baldwin amendment can be offered and pulled back without a vote, because if it was given a vote, I would vote for the Baldwin amendment.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): I rise in strong support of the underlying bill and the Baldwin amendment. . . . I strongly support providing protection from discrimination to transgender Americans, and I will not rest until their right to live their lives free of fear, discrimination, and intolerance is the law of this land.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ): Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of inclusive ENDA that provides employment protections for sexual orientation as well as gender identity, I am an original cosponsor of the original ENDA that was introduced earlier this year, the legislation we should be taking up today.
(Rep. Holt also added to the Congressional Record a letter from himself, Rep. Yvette Clark, Rep. Linda Sanchez, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, dissenting from H.R. 3685, though only two of them (Reps. Holt and Clark) actually voted against the flawed bill.)
Rep Welch (D-VT): "I am glad that the rule makes in order the amendment by Representative Baldwin to include ``gender identity'' protections in the bill. I urge all my colleagues to support the rule, support the Baldwin amendment , and support the underlying bill."
Rep. Davis (D-CA): I rise in support, but I am sorry we are not debating a more inclusive gender identity bill today, which I would have supported, and let me tell you why. Employment discrimination strikes at a fundamental American value, the right of each individual to do his or her job without facing unfair discrimination. Transgendered people are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups within the LGBT community.
Rep Moran (D-VA): As a sponsor of ENDA, I would have favored the further amendment by Congresswoman Baldwin , but the fact is that this is a civil rights struggle, and struggles take time.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): While ENDA's victory will represent an historic victory, I share the disappointment of TAMMY BALDWIN , BARNEY FRANK and others who support including protection for transgender individuals in ENDA.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA): . . . at the outset, I'd like to note that I did not vote for this bill in Committee, not because I don't support its goals--I do--but because I strongly believe that we could have done better by protecting more people from discrimination. That is why I am proud to support the amendment by my colleague from Wisconsin, that will add a prohibition against gender identity discrimination. This amendment is needed because protecting transgender people is the right thing to do. We're talking about a small group of people, but a group that faces tremendous discrimination and that deserves to be protected from workplace discrimination just as much as anybody else. Now that this bill is out of committee and on the floor, let me be clear, I will vote for it because it extends a basic right to millions of Americans. And that right is the right to go to work and earn a living.
Rep. Langevin (D-RI): I also want to voice my strong support for an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin , which would prevent discrimination based on gender identity. Rhode Island is one of 12 States that protect gender identity in employment, and our experience has been a positive one. Transgender individuals often have their own set of challenges in the workplace, and we must ensure that their rights are protected as well. I am deeply disappointed that the underlying bill does not include gender identity, especially as I am a cosponsor of a fully inclusive ENDA.
Rep. Stark ( ): No job applicant should be discriminated against because of his or her race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation--or sexual orientation or gender identity. . . . This legislation succeeds in advancing civil rights. However, it still falls short of what needs to be accomplished. By no means is this bill as inclusive as it should be. It fails to include gender identity as a protected class. I commend Congresswoman BALDWIN for her efforts to include the transgender community in today's legislation. Had her amendment reached a vote on the House floor, I would have proudly supported it.
Rep Honda ( ): Sadly, more inclusive language was narrowed to exclude the most vulnerable, least understood group within the LGBT community, transgender men and women. I congratulate Representative BALDWIN on offering an amendment to re-insert this wording into the underlying bill and I proudly support her effort. Although this amendment was withdrawn, I was prepared to vote in its favor.
Rep. DeGette ( ): I will cast my vote with deep regret the trangendered community has been denied the protections offered to gays and lesbians in this bill. I did not support its removal from the overall legislation and am extremely disappointed that it will not be included when the House passes H.R. 3685.
Rep. Waxman ( ): As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2015, a more comprehensive version of this legislation, I am disappointed that H.R. 3685 does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity. I strongly support the amendment Representative Baldwin will offer to include gender identity in H.R. 3685 and if that amendment is not adopted, I pledge to work for an ENDA that includes gender identity.
Rep. Hirono: As an original cosponsor of the original ENDA, H.R. 2015, I am glad to be able to have this opportunity to debate the BALDWIN amendment to include anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals. It is unfortunate that political realities made it difficult to bring an inclusive ENDA to the floor today in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)