11/09/2007
Advocate Reveals New Findings from HRC ENDA Poll
Additional results of a poll of 514 LGBT people taken by Knowledge Networks, Inc., of Menlo Park and sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign were revealed today by The Advocate.
The poll concerned the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which was passed on Wednesday by the House in a 235-184 vote.
According to the magazine, the first question asked participants "which of the following three statements was closest to reflecting their views":
A. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should oppose this proposal because it excludes transgender people.
B. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should support this proposal because it helps gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers and is a step toward transgender employment rights.
C. National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should adopt a neutral stance for this proposal because while it helps gay, lesbians, and bisexual workers, it also excludes transgender people.
Check out the results after the jump...
The Advocate reports: "Of those surveyed, 67.7% agreed with statement B, while 15.8% agreed with statement A, 12.8% agreed with statement C, and 3.6% did not answer."
The results of a second survey question — "This proposal would make it illegal to fire gay, lesbian, or bisexual workers because of their sexual orientation. This proposal does NOT include people who are transgender. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?" — were also revealed.
For those results, visit The Advocate here.
(image: bay area reporter)
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 1:10 PM EST by Andy in ENDA, News | Permalink
Comments
And this is surprising because?????????????
Posted by: Matt | Nov 9, 2007 1:50:04 PM
What a stupid poll. Talk about gaming the results. Transgender people deserve protection but I'm not persuaded they have anything to do with gay people. Of course, saying this is verboten but it's just my (gay) opinion.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 9, 2007 1:52:58 PM
Dan,
Of course transgendered people have something to do with gays. They are the gay communities ugly stepsister. We only bring them out when we need to be entertained at a bar or need them to stand up for our rights why we slack.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 9, 2007 2:02:33 PM
Dan, Andrew Sullivan said the same thing this morning. As much as I respect their movement for equal rights, I don't think transgender people have much to do with gay people - I think this is an amazing step in the right direction - a first step - unfortunately one that Bush will veto.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 9, 2007 2:03:39 PM
I agree with Dan. I've actually stopped support Gay organizations that keep propagating the BS that sexual orientation and gender identity are somehow intertwined. They're only intertwined by ignorant straight people.
Quite frankly, I've never been thrilled that bisexuals are thrown in with gays and lesbians. They aren't gay or lesbian.
I support individual freedoms short of cause pain, suffering, and damage to others. I support whole heartedly bisexuals and transgendered people - but I'm sick and tired of gay and lesbian issues being diluted, blurred, and marginalized because they're intertwined with issues of gender identity and... whatever.
It's hard enough to focus an agenda that meets the often disparate needs of gay men and/vs lesbian women.
I think bisexuals and transgendered people should form their own organizations and then we can combine forces when appropriate. I'm tired and restless with the lack of progress for my community.
Just trying to be honest - not hating or judging.
www.theskinofmyteeth.com
David
Posted by: David B. | Nov 9, 2007 2:07:50 PM
Thanks, Matt:
Now I don't have to open my big mouth and spill venom out onto the keyboard.
Dan,
Have you ever seen a drag queen who goes in drag all the time; or just an extremely effeminate male, with contoured eyebrows & wearing a little makeup) And this biological male who is attracted to men has never wanted to have a sex change? That's being transgender and gay at the same time.
The umbrella word "gay" contains a wiiiiiide variety of people. Maybe including some that you may neeeeeever want to come in contact with, but they were gay loooooong before you were eeeeeever boooooorn.
Posted by: Derrick from PHilly | Nov 9, 2007 2:16:40 PM
Hey, David B:
Maybe Lesbians should separate from gay men in the movement. THe gay girls do a lot more work towards Gay Liberation--always have.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 9, 2007 2:20:01 PM
Sorry Derrick but you may be thinking of
"queer" being the wiide variety.....
I too thought gay was inclusive until women started screaming that they were lesbian....
so we had to add the l then the B
I too think that there is a difference between sexual orientation (same sex orientation) and gender identity we as a community have chosen to expand our political and social community to welcomed bisexuals, straights, transgendered .
Yes we were able to secure some protections for many within this community...but we still have to work for more.
And we will.
This bill exempted the military and religious groups including hospitals,.,..so even a doctor, researcher, nurse may be fired for being GLB...but Jerry Nadler and MAtt Forman OBJECTED and voted against this bill because of what was NOT INCLUDED instead of what discrimination WAS included.
Will Jerry Nadler vote AGAINST SCHIP because it does not include health insurance for ALL CHILDREN?
Posted by: MCnNYC | Nov 9, 2007 2:31:56 PM
I'm quite surprised by the sudden exclusion of trans people in all these comments. I am friends with, and somewhat active in the trans community in Seattle, and I didn't think that it needed to pointed out that a large percentage of trans self-identify as Queer.
This was the time that the Queer community could band together and show our solidarity in demanding rights for all Queer identified people. Instead we splinter off, and are viewed as a demographic that can be appeased by strategically timed, moderate legislation, effectively losing our sense of a cohesive minority. How this is advancing our cause is beyond me, we are simply falling victim to the idea of "justice for a select few."
A majority of trans face the double discrimination of being Queer and Trans, and this ENDA does nothing to help a valid faction of the Queer community, effectively nullifying any good that this act would have done. How is this justified? What was that ever-popular post 9/11 slogan: "United We Stand?" I think we blew it.
Posted by: Tyler | Nov 9, 2007 2:35:33 PM
I think including bisexuals might rankle me even more than transgendereds. I've never seen a bisexual fighting for their rights, starting groups, engaging in political action. I have nothing against bisexuals (except for all the drunk ones I slept with in college who "forgot" about it the next day), but by age 25 or so about 99 percent of them end up being gay or straight. So what's the point of including them?
Actually I think they undermine our movement, because some religious or conservative people (like my mother) have a much easier time understanding homosexuality than bisexuality. They see bis as promiscuous pleasure-seekers who can't make up their minds.
In any case, the effort to be so inclusive and not step on anyone's feelings can get ridiculous. I've seen things like LGBTQPQU, with some of the latter letters standing for queer, questioning, pansexual, uncertain, and who knows what. Stupid.
When the movement first started it was just gay. The only reason lesbians got listed separately was because of feminism and, as Derrick noted, all the work they've done.
Posted by: Paul | Nov 9, 2007 2:50:48 PM
... this is kind of like how gays are put off when blacks don't want gay civil rights struggles associated with their own...African-americans are then accused of being homophobic and gays transphobic...where will it all end...?
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Nov 9, 2007 2:51:58 PM
"Self-identify" is a favorite phrase of trans and other people who don't conform to a binary gender system, and I respect it. But surely the whole point of the law in question, and the reason it should be passed, is that it hardly matters how you self-identify--it's how others identify you that counts.
Beyond an understanding of how discrimination can be painful, I don't really understand what gay and trans people have in common at all. I'm gay and therefore a member of a sexual minority, but I do play by the rules of a heteronormative, two-gender world. Trans people don't, and while that disruption can be glorious and even necessary, it really doesn't involve me much at all.
Posted by: Kip | Nov 9, 2007 2:57:38 PM
Push poll. The wording of option B is designed to disarm those being polled. If it ended "even though it leaves the transgendered, effeminate men and 'butch' women without employment protections" I suspect the results would have been very different. Additionally what is the breakdown of the poll? How many transgendered individuals were included in the sample? What is the geographical spread of the sample? Chelsea & the Castro? Was the sample random or self-selected?
Personally I am getting sick of all the throwing under the bus that is going on. That is part of the left's problem, not just the Hillaries and Obamas but gay activists as well. The high minded ideals and fundamental principles can be trashed on a whim for the sake of political expediency. The left can be every bit as immoral as the right claimsthey are (though the right has no leg to stand on in the morality department).
Posted by: Craig | Nov 9, 2007 3:00:16 PM
Sorry to say it but ENDA is good for no one. It exempts religious organizations. Which means anyone who works for a hospital affiliated with a religious org is not protcted by ENDA. Anyone who works for a charitable organization affiliated with a religious organization is not covered by ENDA. Anyone who works for an organization affiliated with any faith-based organization is not covered by ENDA. Get the picture? ENDA really is a bill of goods we're being sold. In fact we need to hope that ENDA doesn't pass and then challenge these things constitutionally.
I'm a little offended that people think I don't already have these rights. I must have missed that part in the constitution that says..."oh yeah! None of this applies to fags and dykes." And here I thought I'd read all the fine print.
Posted by: Jake | Nov 9, 2007 3:02:31 PM
MCNNYC:
I appreciate your thoughtful comment in response to my comment, and your take on the issue of "who's & what is gay". The problem I'm having is not allowing gender role rebels decide whether they are gay or not. There are loads of gay men who when they were little boys THOUGHT they wanted to be girls, and gay women who THOUGHT they wanted to be boys. We got older and the gender disatisfaction went away with puberty ( 'course, some people don't get out of puberty till age thirty-two).
And there plenty of you who claim you never wanted to be a girl, but everybody thought so.
When I started going to gay clubs & gay venues back in the 1970s, there was never a question about gender role non-conformists (drag queens, fem queens, butch Lesbians) being part of the gay world. Now, gay men seem to be saying some kind of evolution in the definition of the term "gay" has occured, and I'll be damned if I was aware of it. Where did this new definition of gay come from? Frickin' Indiana? Who decided this? Jeffrey Dahmer?
If a drag queen goes in drag all the time, but never wanted a sex change--"she" is transgendered. If "she" says, "I'm gay", then "she" is frickin' gay too.
This debate about the definition of gay and who is gay, is fucking extraordinary to me. How are people born after 1970 going to decide who/what is gay? The ungrateful, arrogant motha' fuckas.
I wish Angie Extravaganza, Pepper Labeija and Dorian Corey were still around so one of y'all could tell them, "you're not gay." Y'all would be lucky to get out of New York City alive.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 9, 2007 3:07:35 PM
What an ugly trend in queer politics as evidenced by the thoughts expressed by Matt, Dan and Kevin. Contrary to what Kevin asserted early on, the concepts of gender and sexual identity are anything BUT separated in the liberal and gay intellectual circles. Rather, they are inseparably joined. I can't help but feel that this trend in the queer community is the influence of the heteronormative need for separation, limited and discreteness in understanding sexuality and gender. Are we willing to cast out other segments of the queer community to make ourselves more delectable to heteronormative society?
Back to the original point, sexuality and gender are hardly separated. You can't understand the one without the other. A homosexual (and heterosexual) identifies his sexuality by virtue of the desire for another. And that "another" is understood through a set of very gendered concepts. Even that homosexuality is presupposed by a set of gendered ideas. It's really an endless circle, and the two concepts can't be distinctly examined.
And don't try to escape it by pointing to biological sex. Science is not so objective, and it's impossible to understand sex without referring to gender. (Though, granted, there is sexual difference. It, however, doesn't correspond to biological sex.) I'd recommend you do some reading. For example, Anne Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality OR Judith Butler's Gender Trouble are good starting places.
Posted by: Robert | Nov 9, 2007 3:08:03 PM
Very well put, Robert, thanks--but I think MATT'S comments were in support of our view.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 9, 2007 3:25:08 PM
ENDA, as passed, is a total sham. It doesn't grant me the pony to which I am clearly entitled by the constitution.
So what if ENDA would give millions of gay men and lesbians, including millions of transgender people, legal redress if discriminated against on the job because of their perceived sexual orientation? IT DOESN'T GET ME MY PONY!
I am sick and tired of my pony always being thrown under the bus by assimilationist gays and Democratic politicians, all in the name of pragmatism and incremental progress. I WANT MY PONY NOW!
The vast right-wing conspiracy is no doubt chuckling at the passage of this toothless, ponyless ENDA.
Always remember: United we trot, divided we walk.
Posted by: 24play | Nov 9, 2007 3:25:22 PM
Thanks Derrick! I got confused on whose names were attached to which comments.
Posted by: Robert | Nov 9, 2007 3:29:50 PM
It's pretty clear now that those who were willing to brave the character assasinations of United ENDA, NGLTF and the activist cirle were correct--in saying that those groups did *not* represent the will of gay folks on the ground.
I hope we can be more inclusive. But I don't harbor the illusion that gay rights and trans rights are identical and will always find social and political acceptance at the same time.
Posted by: adamblast | Nov 9, 2007 3:47:32 PM
The Democrats sideswiped the real ENDA when they passed their bogus version. They thought it would solve the problems of increasing GLBT anger against them. After all they’re the party of DOMA, DADT and pigheaded opposition to samesex marriage. They’re the same party that promised to end war in the 2006 election but soon morphed into a prowar party.
To promote their ENDA hustle they tried to split the movement by encouraging transphobic bigotry, and it’s evident from some of the above comments and the use of gay basing terms like ‘mad tranny disease’ that they succeeded with a few dummies. But only a few. The vast majority of GLBT activists and groups rightly rejected the bigotry embodied in the Democrats bogus bill.
Their backstabbing will boomerang as the word gets out about the fake ENDA. It actively promotes discrimination by christian totalitarians and by bigots of all kinds against transsexuals. The Democrats bogus version continues their grubby opposition to samesex marriage and for DOMAs. Its counterfeit claim to offer legal relief for the millions of GLBT folk who face unremitting bigotry is DOA. The bosses will still be able to rake in big bucks by underpaying us. Those same bosses will fill the pockets of the grubby Democrats and Republicans who supported this charade.
The arrogance and futility of the Democrats hustle is going to backfire on them. They’re not fooling anyone except a few braindead transphobic rightwing shills who are on the way out of the movement. They’re digging their own grave.
The real activists and real organizations, which are overwhelming opposed to their rightward dance with the Republicans, have no options left; we’ll have to organize independently of both the Democrats and Republicans.
The NLGTF said: “We are relieved this episode is behind us, and starting right now we are going to pick up where we were six weeks ago — namely, working to pass into law in 2009 the ENDA our entire community wants and deserves.”
If some Democrats or Republicans join our effort that's excellent, we need
their support. As for the rest, and their shills, good riddance.
Now we just have to wait and see what J. Edgar Hoover Jr. has to say about all this.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Nov 9, 2007 4:00:47 PM
Sorry to throw cold water on those who have been suckered by the dishonest tactics of those still spreading Mad Tranny Disease but, "exemption in ENDA for religious institutions, such as church-run schools or associations, is identical to the religious exemption in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." - Washington Blade.
The ruthlessness of some who claim to speak for them or for gays does not change the fact that we are all discriminated against under the same banner: transgression against arrogant straight concepts of gender "norm" and expectation. I don't care how butch ya are, if you love other men romantically and sexually THIS INCLUDES YOU!
But ignoring those like the people still trying to debunk this study [they'd praise it if it agreed with them] while they try to call the ship back that sailed two days ago, we must work together to take further steps forward not backward. Leave doing the Time Warp to socialist provocateurs like Comrade Bill whose agenda has nothing to do with anyone's rights no matter how many letters float in the boiling alphabet soup. For months now he's been screaming about who he's against-who he is FOR? The microscopic "US Labor Party" has no horse in this race. Or are we all supposed to write in "Bill Perdue"?
Onward....hairy and fairy; tops and bottoms; leather and lace; pretty or plain; young and old; black, brown, and beige; male and female and all points in between.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Nov 9, 2007 4:28:08 PM
Let's face the facts: most straight people and many gay people are opposed to TG rights because they don't know any TG people. (It's just like how people are opposed to gay rights until a relative, friend, or coworker turns out to be gay.) And the reason for that is because there are far, far fewer TG people than gay people. I'm not saying it's fair or right, I'm just saying that's the reason.
According to a TG website, "The estimated ratio of MTF transsexuals to genetic males is between 1:2,000 and 1:80,000. The estimated ratio of FTM transsexuals to genetic females is between 1:2,000 and 1:125,000." That means that, at best, 1 in 2,000 people are TG, which is way, way less than 1 percent. At worst, it's 1 in 80,000 or 1 in 125,000. So there are, at minimum, 80 times as many gays as there are TGs, and perhaps 3,200 times as many gays as TGs. It's a simple matter of numbers, and people have fear of the unknown. Those of us in urban areas can scream all we want about demanding equality, because we know TGs. (The TG site says that 90% of TGs live in urban areas.) But gays are scary enough to many people. TGs are incomprehensible.
As with everything, education and visibility will be key to advancing transgender rights.
Posted by: Paul | Nov 9, 2007 4:34:51 PM
Ah how short our memory can be.
Does anyone remember when California added protections. They were bogus horrible awful protections because they didn't include gender identity.
And all those gay men and women who were protected at work for the first time should feel ashamed because it didn't include transgendered persons immediately. Nor did it include ponies (thanks 24play).
And just because later revisions did included the transgendered, and just because the incremental approach worked in California, Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Washington DC doesn't mean they weren't fake. Fake, I say. And bogus. And no ponies!!
So we need to tell the gay guy living in Alabama who works for MobilExxon or the lesbian living in Texas who works for Perot systems that they should not expect any protections. Nosireeee. They should wait another decade until we can convince enough legislators to pass gender protections.
And if they need job protections now, just screw em. We care more about unity and coalition building and not tossing transexuals under the bridge than we do about their ability to keep a job or rent an apartment.
After all, what's more important here? Getting job and housing protections for the majority of gay people who don't have them, or keeping the coalition complete?
Posted by: Timothy | Nov 9, 2007 4:43:35 PM
One addition thought... exactly how many of the activists in national organizations that opposed the non-inclusive ENDA actually worry about sexual-orientation job protection? zero. And how many live in areas where this may make the difference between eating next month or not? zero. And how many worry that their landlord may find out they're gay and kick them out? zero.
Posted by: Timothy | Nov 9, 2007 4:47:47 PM
It is definitely positive to have potentially gained these potential protections. However, the costs of this bill are too significant to be ignored.
Timothy: the logic you use in your argument is very easily turned against itself. You base your statement on an emotional supplication: "And if they [gays and lesbians] need job protections now, just screw em." We should feel bad for not striving to get gays and lesbians protections right this moment. Yet, we shouldn't feel bad for delaying protections for the transgender community? You demonstrate a bias against the worth of the trans community in this sentiment. A bias that is definitely present in national organizations. The HRC, the largest gay and lesbian organization in this country, is historical AWFUL when it comes to trans issues. Who is going to campaign, after this bill, for a new bill to include trans protections? Certainly not the HRC. And most likely not any large nationwide organization.
Considering the orginal Stonewall movement was spearheaded by people with alternative gender presentations, I think we owe much to both our predecessors and our successors in this battle for civil liberties. It has less to do with a unified appearance and more to do with what is right.
Posted by: Robert | Nov 9, 2007 5:14:52 PM
I think this entire event brilliantly illuminated the key for the opponents of any ENDA to defeating us. To those people that think that exclusion was the way to go Pat Robertson sends his best regards, and so many did this just as you were expected to. Instead of showing some balls (pun intended) so many showed weakness by not standing beside the trans community. AND ALL FOR A BILL THAT WILL BE VETOED.
Pussies.
Posted by: Gary | Nov 9, 2007 5:19:03 PM
Paul brings up an important point about most transfolk living in (migrating to) large urban areas. I've often said that transgendered GAY people would be more successful seeking job protections on a local level. The politics of ENDA was not my main focus. We're not even sure how effective this legislation will be as a federal law, but as Leland said, it is symbolic also. I just wish that symbolism had included ALL gay people, not just the conformists. I was disgusted by the overt bigotry towards trans people exhibited by gay men (or should I say, homosexual men). Gay men that may see a little of themselves in transfolk, and that little something is what many of y'all have been trying to run away from ever since you first picked up your sister's Barbie Doll.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 9, 2007 5:34:24 PM
I have listened to this debate until I just can't stand it anymore. I'm also sorry to be politically incorrect here, but I don't see what gender identity has to do with being gay. To wit: a male has sex reassignment and becomes female and has a male partner. She is straight. She goes through the process, is now legally a female and can marry her male partner. Now she gets all benefits as someone's wife.
I cannot.
So please help me to understand how this trans person is in less of a position than I am in terms of freedoms applied? Secondarily, please also explain to me why this has anything to do with being born attracted to someone of the SAME SEX. I have never, ever, in my entire life contemplated being anything other than male and frankly find the idea repugnant. I want to be a male and am only able to have full romantic and sexual relationships with other men. Even when I've donned drag for fun, I never, ever thought of myself as anything but a character.
So I'm just trying to understand why I should put my rights on hold while we include some other group that doesn't exactly align with what I am. I not against extending those rights, but I simply do not understand why we shouldn't take this step and then move on if we feel inclusive.
Posted by: ipodius | Nov 9, 2007 6:19:20 PM
Ipodius, I think the simple response would be that TGs come in all forms, from male-to-female and vice versa. And if they make the switch, they may pursue same-sex relationships. (In San Francisco many MTF TGs are in lesbian relationships.) So it's complicated. Finally, not every state will allow people born one sex to be considered the other, even after an operation, so marriage isn't necessarily an option.
But that's just an explanation. I don't expect it to really change your opinion.
Posted by: Paul | Nov 9, 2007 6:40:53 PM
Sorry, but from reading these posts it seems like many gay men want to project their own experiences and childhoods onto the rest of the gay world. Many many gay men did not grow up "wanting to be girls" and playing with barbies (nor did we want to). We were simply attracted to other guys. From the sounds of most of you, you'd think all gay men were effeminate and/or want to be woman. If a straight person said that, we'd all scream "homophobia" like there was no tomorrow. And yet, according to most of you, it's the truth. So which is it?
I agree that as far as ENDA is concerned, the straights are laughing at us,...unfortunately it's not for the reasons you might think.
Posted by: Reggie | Nov 9, 2007 6:42:18 PM
Before we put the lesbians on too a high a pedestal, let us please remember that many gay women are against trannies for messing with the organs that nature gave them. They wouldn't let the M to F transgenders into that WOMYN festival if I am not mistaken!
Posted by: jmg | Nov 9, 2007 7:30:44 PM
IPODIUS: "I have never, ever, in my entire life contemplated being anything other than male and frankly find the idea repugnant."
Pat Robertson: "The concept, the word for homosexual behavior, is sodomy. That is what is used in the official documents. It is sodomy. It is repugnant."
A disturbing similarity? A queer parroting the language of the evangelical right? Applying your imaginings as a universal mandate is precisely the mechanism by which the queer community is oppressed.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are linked, in a very obvious way: you are NOT a man because you fuck a "man." When you identify as a man, you're relying on the conventional (i.e., heteronormative) conception of what constitutes a man. According to such a model, masculinity is founded on heterosexual desire. A man is a man because he desires a woman. You CAN'T exist in such a model. None of us can. You can pretend you're a man, and you can pretend the person you desire is a man--but neither is the case. By the very fact that you WANT a man, you're undermining the traditional concepts of masculinity and manhood. It seems you deny (and moralize) the gender subversion of the transgender, but you implicitly accept (and ignore) the same process in yourself.
Ironically enough, the conservatives who would be in the position to fire someone seem operate in the same way. Few, if any people, will be fired for BEING gay. Rather, the case will be based on perceived abnormalities in gender expression. A man, if too feminine, won't be hired. A woman, if too masculine, will be fired. The employers won't catch a man fucking another man. Instead, the employer will see markers of femininity in someone who, according to the norm, should be only masculine.
Every aspect of the queer community revolves around a subversion of traditional concepts of sex, gender and desire. I'm gay, and so I've taken on a distorted version of masculinity that DOESN'T comply with or match the straight form of masculinity.
Yet, some people in this thread seem bent on clinging to outmoded views of gender and desire, binaries all. Instead, we should be embracing the proliferation of gender identities and freeing ideas of sex, gender and desire from constricting norms.
Posted by: Robert | Nov 9, 2007 8:19:04 PM
Timothy: the logic you use in your argument is very easily turned against itself. You base your statement on an emotional supplication: "And if they [gays and lesbians] need job protections now, just screw em." We should feel bad for not striving to get gays and lesbians protections right this moment. Yet, we shouldn't feel bad for delaying protections for the transgender community? You demonstrate a bias against the worth of the trans community in this sentiment.
No, you are mistaken.
If we could get trans protections but not gay protections, I would still say, "go for it - don't demand that we get everything until we actually can".
If we can only get trans protections right now in some states, should I say, "No!!! Wait for Federal protection. It's all or nothing!!!"?
I think you would agree that we should get rights for trans in CA if we can (and we have) and if we think it's possible in some other state we should lobby and try. Even if it means that the trans in Wyoming will not immediately have protections.
I believe we fight for the rights we CAN get now, and keep fighting for the ones we need. If we could get marriage for lesbians, but not gay men, I would support it. As a step. And I wouldn't insist that my sisters all wait until I can have my pony too.
I think it is incredibly short sighted to demand all or nothing. And considering that those demanding it have no personal dog in the race, I think it is incredibly selfish and self-centered.
If you live in rural Alabama and as a gay man or lesbian oppose ENDA because you want to wait for support for transgender folks, maybe I'll listen. But most here who are calling it bogus or fake or a sell-out have nothing to lose. If you live in NYC or LA or DC or Seattle or some other urban area you have the comfort of being theoretical and getting on your high horse.
Posted by: Timothy | Nov 9, 2007 8:59:01 PM
Robert:
Just because we all differ from the norm doesn't make us all one group. When you look at your lawn, neither trees, nor rocks, nor flowers are grass, but they all differ from grass in different ways. They might choose to group together in their non-grass-ness, but that still doesn't make them all related.
The survey should have included a fourth option: "It would have been nice to have included transgender rights on this go 'round of ENDA, but if we had to let them go for the bill to pass, that doesn't bother me."
Hey, I'll happily voice my support for an ENDA for trans people--but it will be as a non-trans ally.
I don't see the whole trans community refusing to get married until GL folks can, too. Good for them. Having them marry makes the case easier for us. Having our ENDa pass will make it easier for them to pass one for them down the road.
Forming coalitions with others who share your outsiderness makes sense. It doesn't make you one group.
Posted by: Maxx | Nov 9, 2007 9:00:55 PM
Being gay and being transgendered are totally different issues, even if some uneducated people don`t understand that fact.
I think we add to the confusion of the public when we lump them together.
For example, I read a news article yesterday about a discussion in Santa Barbara about adding restrooms for the transgendered. The journalist kept discussing the whole thing in terms of `homosexuality,` and I wondered, doesn`t she realize that homosexuality has nothing to do with it.
I completely am onside for the rights of the transgendered. But the rights in question are very different from the issues denied to gays.
And as for the kolitically correct addition of one letter after another to our ever exkaniding acronyms, I agree that `gay` includes women, ading an `L` just mentions gay women twice, and once we`ve added T for transgendered and I for Intersex and 2S for Two Spirited (Native American gays} and SGL for Same Gender Loving (black gays}, we can keek going forever. We haven`t added albinos yet!
And I find the word `queer` offensive, as do most gay men and women I`ve talked to.
Posted by: GV | Nov 9, 2007 9:08:17 PM
"Every aspect of the queer community revolves around a subversion of traditional concepts of sex, gender and desire. I'm gay, and so I've taken on a distorted version of masculinity that DOESN'T comply with or match the straight form of masculinity.
Yet, some people in this thread seem bent on clinging to outmoded views of gender and desire, binaries all. Instead, we should be embracing the proliferation of gender identities and freeing ideas of sex, gender and desire from constricting norms."
I'll tell ya what, pal. You cling to whatever queer notions of gender that you like. You adopt and embrace your "freeing ideas".
And those of us who find that our views of gender happen to coincide with some of our straight friends will live as we choose. I don't need your "shoulds" to tell me how to appear or behave.
I like being a man. That doesn't mean that I think YOU should look or act in any particular way, but I don't want you dictating to me about my views, be they outmoded or (perhaps) post-ghetto.
So you just trot on with your notions of what masculinity should not be. You can worry about heteronormativity and anti-traditionality and gender fluidity and whatever else makes you and your totalitarian everyone-must-conform-to-my-nonconformist mindset happy.
But I'm a man (I just checked) and your notions otherwise have no impact on that fact.
Posted by: Timothy | Nov 9, 2007 9:11:17 PM
*So you just trot on with your notions of what masculinity should not be. You can worry about heteronormativity and anti-traditionality and gender fluidity and whatever else makes you and your totalitarian everyone-must-conform-to-my-nonconformist mindset happy*
LOL!! I cosign with Timothy. Well put!
I laugh at these anti-conformist conformist who want everybody to think like them! If some of y'all are gender confused, then like Timothy said, trot on....but the rest of us enjoy being men and have no problems with our "gender conformity". LOL
Posted by: Ray | Nov 9, 2007 9:29:23 PM
You definitely misunderstand my point. I'm not advocating that you throw off men identification. I'm just saying we have a common goal in attempting to rid ourselves of the compulsory normative that attempts to define everyone, thus allowing ANY form of gender to appear (even if it is traditional masculinity).
And as for the snide comment about checking your dick: having a dick doesn't equal being a man and sex and gender AREN'T the same thing. Besides, sex is, to an extant, just as fabricated as culturally constructed gender.
Posted by: Robert | Nov 9, 2007 9:48:43 PM
*having a dick doesn't equal being a man and sex and gender AREN'T the same thing*
That statement only applies in your "we're all genderless constructs/twin spirited/i am man/woman" world.
In the rest of the world (the other 90 percent) having a dick makes you a man. end of story.
trot on, mister sister, trot on....
Posted by: Man with Penis | Nov 9, 2007 10:19:03 PM
I do not know which to prefer,
The beauty of inflections
Or the beauty of innuendoes,
The blackbird whistling
Or just after.
from wallace stephen's "13 ways of looking at a blackbird."
guys and gals, we should not be at cross purposes now. our lives are contingent upon what we do from here on out! we need to get serious. i, personally, do not care whether hillary or obama or richardson or anyone else from the dem pool gets nominated. we need to stop the infighting and face the facts.
focus on this: a repug prez will appoint right-leaning justices who will vote against our rights as americans to equal protection under the law. we have to demand equal justice; if it is piece-meal, such as the ENDA bill, so be it. but, we cannot allow the internecine fighting to impede our march to the goal.
Posted by: nic | Nov 10, 2007 4:45:53 AM
"In the rest of the world (the other 90 percent) having a dick makes you a man. end of story."
no, sorry, in the rest of the world, having once had a dick or having a dick makes you a man. and that's why despite me being a trans woman, i am as gay as you.
believe me, when the 'phobes are kicking my ass, they're call me "fag", the same way they're calling you "fag".
Posted by: nexyjo | Nov 10, 2007 1:21:58 PM
Jesus Christ.
Someone's been reading too much god damn Foucault and Judith Butler.
Airy fairy theory should not get in the way of pragmatic politics.
Get your head out of the ivory tower once in a while and breathe the same air as everyone else.
Posted by: LightningLord | Nov 10, 2007 6:46:41 PM
The HRC poll was biased in its questions and self-serving in its posted results. Frankly, HRC has told so many lies in the last couple of months that I don't believe ther reporting of the results. Let's not forget that the gay rights movement at Stonewall was started by trans people. They have been part of of us since the beginning.
Posted by: Julie | Nov 11, 2007 7:33:44 AM
Wow. Frankly, after reading all of these posts, you've got a few pissed off Trannies who think that they are part of the gay community. Now remember people, the Stonewall riots were men in drag, drag queens, they didn't want to cut off their dicks, they wanted to dress up as women.
I don't support the GLBT? center here in San Francisco, because I'm neither BT or ?. If there was a GL center, then I would support that, but I'm just not the type of person who thinkgs they need to support everything for everyone. Gays and Lesbians need the right to marry, adopt, and have the full rights as straight people. A trannie falls into that group when he or she makes the transition.
I'm all for ENDA - I think it's a good start. Does it support everyone - no, but once enacted, the other groups - the bisexuals, the trannies, the questioning, the ones who think that they can keep switching their sex on a whim (there's a certain writer in our "GLBT" community who seems to like to do that) can then fight for their own inclusion.
And lets me just end this by saying, I love the show TransGender nation, but these are people transitioning to another sex. Once changed, they already have more rights than I, as a Gay Man, have.
Posted by: Jason | Nov 12, 2007 10:25:45 AM
Wow. I found this thread entirely depressing. It is amazing to me that we run on the motto of 'inclusion' and yet it ends up with such exclusion. I guess many people are self-serving and there is simply now way around it. Just as political as the politicians. Preach what you need to get support when you need it, but stand by nothing.
Posted by: Brad | Nov 13, 2007 12:21:31 AM
Wow. Frankly, after reading all of these posts, you've got a few pissed off Trannies who think that they are part of the gay community. Now remember people, the Stonewall riots were men in drag, drag queens, they didn't want to cut off their dicks, they wanted to dress up as women.
Sylvia Rivera identified herself as transgendered, and referring to them all as drag queens is revisionist.
Also, I've been part of the lesbian community for several years now. I'm not deluded on that point.
When Gwen Araujo's murderer beat her to death, he shouted "I'm not gay!" When straight men murder trans women, they use the same defense that they use for killing gay men. We're dealing with the same hate, except that trans women are far more likely to not get a job or even be murdered.
I don't care about whatever ideas you think you have about what trans people are like, but we've been in the movement from the beginning, we've fought for your rights only to be kicked to the curb because we're too inconvenient - something that's happened over and over again. As far as I'm concerned, you can't trust a straight-acting gay white man, because they really are in it for themselves.
I swear to god, if you heard anyone saying the same shit about you that you're saying about trans people and bisexuals in this thread, you'd explode.
Fuck, I'm disgusted with you fags. Go start yourselves a new movement.
Posted by: Lisa Harney | Nov 13, 2007 3:31:53 AM
Recent Comments