TG Friendly States

[Aeyra]

Unfortunately, Amy T I'm going to agree with Fae on whether I can take you seriously anymore now that you are coming across as rubbing your 'expert' status in people's faces. Simply claiming to be an expert doesn't always raise your credibility, I don't care if you have a BA and an MS and a PQ or whatever. I have been to big cities and small towns around America too, and I will agree that there are parts to DC that are TG friendly. But overall I don't buy that DC is a good place for TGs.

For the record, terrorism is nothing new. To most people this is an obvious ploy to distract us from more pressing issues, like our national debt for example.

[Fae]

For the record, terrorism is nothing new. To most people this is an obvious ploy to distract us from more pressing issues, like our national debt for example.

I do understand it's a ploy, but nonetheless it's been a different world since 9/11.  Probably one of the biggest reasons I won't live in a big city like DC.  A small, unknown and unimportant city, maybe, but nothing major like NYC, DC, Boston, etc...

~Fae

[SarahFaceDoom]

If you just did New Orleans separate from the rest of Louisiana where would it rank?(New Orleans, not Louisiana).

Probably a bit higher up but I based my report on the states as a whole, not parts of them. I would probably leave LA if you live outside of New Orleans. Even so, New Orleans is still in poor condition even long after Katrina. Granted the city may be TG friendly but I can't see how they will be able to put it back together. It's a shame since I heard that New Orleans was once a beautiful city.

It's really only the poorer sections of the city that are in bad shape.  The tourist sections are mostly in tact.  I was only asking because I had lived there, and planned to return.  I currently live in Rhode Island though, which is pretty good I guess.  But New Orleans is home.

[seldom]

Unfortunately, Amy T I'm going to agree with Fae on whether I can take you seriously anymore now that you are coming across as rubbing your 'expert' status in people's faces. Simply claiming to be an expert doesn't always raise your credibility, I don't care if you have a BA and an MS and a PQ or whatever. I have been to big cities and small towns around America too, and I will agree that there are parts to DC that are TG friendly. But overall I don't buy that DC is a good place for TGs.

For the record, terrorism is nothing new. To most people this is an obvious ploy to distract us from more pressing issues, like our national debt for example.

Like I said.  I live here, you don't.  Generally speaking most people I know who are TG get employment fairly easily and remain in jobs, even when they openly identify.  Save for the republican nutcases, the people in DC are probably the most open minded you will ever meet, and you are less likely to face employment discrimination than anywhere else in the country, because the employers are much more image conscious with regards to discrimination because the amount of civil rights groups based here is enormous.  While I am around a bit of a different crowd, progressive and liberal activist (which describes about 55-70% of the DC area BTW), I have yet to get the impression the area is not transgender friendly.  Again, above all else this is the impression I get FROM LIVING HERE.  And to be honest, that is the best experience you can get from an area.  No offense, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with DC and your criteria for evaluation in general is total crap. 

On top of that my access to transgender services is above all excellent.  Which is completely missed in your evaluation. 

The DC area changed quite a bit after the death of the trans person as a result of the idiot paramedics.  Things changed quite a bit since that happened. 

I could go on, but the city by in large is as TG friendly as NYC, if not more so, because unlike NYC, the level of harassment out here is much lower. 

So what if I am an elitist.  I at least know the city I live in well enough to see the flaws in your reasoning, but also I see the flaws in your reasoning largely based on factors that should not be even part of a serious evaluation of city or state for a TS to move into.

When it gets down to this "evaluation" that you did is completely subjective based on your own self created criteria and perceptions that really should not be determinative in how good or bad an area is for anybody who is transgendered.  That is why I am being critical, the entire evaluation is highly flawed because you are throwing in factors that have very little to do with being trans in these cities, and are based on fundamentally flawed economic principles and a complete lack of understanding of the conditions in certain cities and states.   

The truth is the evaluation is kind of silly and unnecessary.  Move were gay and lesbian people are, it is really that simple.  They are more likely to be accepting of queer folks. It is baffling to me how many transgender people do not understand this.   DC has a huge gay and lesbian population, but a very small TG population, it is probably the only city I can think of like this. The other five, Boston, San Fran, Chicago, NYC and LA, all have massive trans populations.    Its not like DC is an unfriendly place for trans folks, its just transfolks don't move out here.  Why?  Who knows.  But its not that the city is not trans friendly.  Any city that passes the most comprehensive gender identity law is anything but unfriendly towards trans people.

I am sorry, but until you get a clue and know how to do a proper evaluation and construction of evaluation I cannot take your entire "transgender friendly states" thing seriously.  There are essential problems with the construct of your evaluation and things that do not belong there in terms of evaluating what is and is not friendly that have nothing to do with being transgender in these areas. 

Another word of advice to trans people.  It may be wise to go into the same careers as lesbians and gays.  For example, the nonprofit world, where I work, there is very little discrimination.  There are probably more women and more queer people working in the nonprofit world than any other economic sector, but very few transgender people.  And its not for lack of acceptance, these people are very accepting and the workplace environment is probably ideal.

I could go on/

Either way, the LGBT clinic here has top notched trans medical services and in general the trans services are great, I have never faced an instance of trans or homophobia (which I saw all the time in Chicago BTW), and it has a massive progressive base.  There are things I don't like in DC, but DC is very trans friendly.  It just has a tiny trans population. 

The only thing out here is a bit of elitism, but its not nearly as bad as the snobbery in Boston.  But that happens when there is a high proportion of people with masters and professional degrees with connections.  I am an elitist, and I am actually an expert, I have the resume and education to prove it.  Get mad at me and not take me seriously if you like, but unlike you I do this type of analysis for a living, so it is very easy for me to see fundamental flaws in what you are presenting and your evaluation method.  Trust me, your evaluation would hold up neither at NTCE or HRC. 


If you are wondering what an evaluation should look like well let me show you:
1. Non-Discrimination Laws
2. Access to TG Health Care and amount Health Care discrimination
3. Access to other TG services
4. Ease of Obtaining Employment/Competitiveness of employment market
5. Cost/Ease of finding housing
6. Size and Presence of a Queer Community
7. Access to higher education

That is how you do evaluation factor.  Short, Simple, and RELEVANT factors.



Thats it.  No using dependancy on federal subsidies and other factors THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING TRANS.  If you did the evaluation like this, I would be far less critical.  Instead you got into absurd factors, and on top of that were generally off base and highly subjective.  I had to debunk your entire evaluation, because the construct of it was crap. 

[Aeyra]

Unfortunately, Amy T I'm going to agree with Fae on whether I can take you seriously anymore now that you are coming across as rubbing your 'expert' status in people's faces. Simply claiming to be an expert doesn't always raise your credibility, I don't care if you have a BA and an MS and a PQ or whatever. I have been to big cities and small towns around America too, and I will agree that there are parts to DC that are TG friendly. But overall I don't buy that DC is a good place for TGs.

For the record, terrorism is nothing new. To most people this is an obvious ploy to distract us from more pressing issues, like our national debt for example.

Like I said.  I live here, you don't.  Generally speaking most people I know who are TG get employment fairly easily and remain in jobs, even when they openly identify.  Save for the republican nutcases, the people in DC are probably the most open minded you will ever meet, and you are less likely to face employment discrimination than anywhere else in the country, because the employers are much more image conscious with regards to discrimination because the amount of civil rights groups based here is enormous.  While I am around a bit of a different crowd, progressive and liberal activist (which describes about 55-70% of the DC area BTW), I have yet to get the impression the area is not transgender friendly.  Again, above all else this is the impression I get FROM LIVING HERE.  And to be honest, that is the best experience you can get from an area.  No offense, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with DC and your criteria for evaluation in general is total crap. 

On top of that my access to transgender services is above all excellent.  Which is completely missed in your evaluation. 

The DC area changed quite a bit after the death of the trans person as a result of the idiot paramedics.  Things changed quite a bit since that happened. 

I could go on, but the city by in large is as TG friendly as NYC, if not more so, because unlike NYC, the level of harassment out here is much lower. 

So what if I am an elitist.  I at least know the city I live in well enough to see the flaws in your reasoning, but also I see the flaws in your reasoning largely based on factors that should not be even part of a serious evaluation of city or state for a TS to move into.

When it gets down to this "evaluation" that you did is completely subjective based on your own self created criteria and perceptions that really should not be determinative in how good or bad an area is for anybody who is transgendered.  That is why I am being critical, the entire evaluation is highly flawed because you are throwing in factors that have very little to do with being trans in these cities, and are based on fundamentally flawed economic principles and a complete lack of understanding of the conditions in certain cities and states.   

The truth is the evaluation is kind of silly and unnecessary.  Move were gay and lesbian people are, it is really that simple.  They are more likely to be accepting of queer folks. It is baffling to me how many transgender people do not understand this.   DC has a huge gay and lesbian population, but a very small TG population, it is probably the only city I can think of like this. The other five, Boston, San Fran, Chicago, NYC and LA, all have massive trans populations.    Its not like DC is an unfriendly place for trans folks, its just transfolks don't move out here.  Why?  Who knows.  But its not that the city is not trans friendly.  Any city that passes the most comprehensive gender identity law is anything but unfriendly towards trans people.

I am sorry, but until you get a clue and know how to do a proper evaluation and construction of evaluation I cannot take your entire "transgender friendly states" thing seriously.  There are essential problems with the construct of your evaluation and things that do not belong there in terms of evaluating what is and is not friendly that have nothing to do with being transgender in these areas. 

Another word of advice to trans people.  It may be wise to go into the same careers as lesbians and gays.  For example, the nonprofit world, where I work, there is very little discrimination.  There are probably more women and more queer people working in the nonprofit world than any other economic sector, but very few transgender people.  And its not for lack of acceptance, these people are very accepting and the workplace environment is probably ideal.

I could go on/

Either way, the LGBT clinic here has top notched trans medical services and in general the trans services are great, I have never faced an instance of trans or homophobia (which I saw all the time in Chicago BTW), and it has a massive progressive base.  There are things I don't like in DC, but DC is very trans friendly.  It just has a tiny trans population. 

The only thing out here is a bit of elitism, but its not nearly as bad as the snobbery in Boston.  But that happens when there is a high proportion of people with masters and professional degrees with connections.  I am an elitist, and I am actually an expert, I have the resume and education to prove it.  Get mad at me and not take me seriously if you like, but unlike you I do this type of analysis for a living, so it is very easy for me to see fundamental flaws in what you are presenting and your evaluation method.  Trust me, your evaluation would hold up neither at NTCE or HRC. 


If you are wondering what an evaluation should look like well let me show you:
1. Non-Discrimination Laws
2. Access to TG Health Care and amount Health Care discrimination
3. Access to other TG services
4. Ease of Obtaining Employment/Competitiveness of employment market
5. Cost/Ease of finding housing
6. Size and Presence of a Queer Community
7. Access to higher education

That is how you do evaluation factor.  Short, Simple, and RELEVANT factors.



Thats it.  No using dependancy on federal subsidies and other factors THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING TRANS.  If you did the evaluation like this, I would be far less critical.  Instead you got into absurd factors, and on top of that were generally off base and highly subjective.  I had to debunk your entire evaluation, because the construct of it was crap. 

If this is what a 'progressive liberal' considers a civil discussion, then quite honestly maybe that's why the whole country is hostile to them. You get a clue, you've never been out here in MN and this neck of the woods. Also, you claim to be an elitist, well, we and most of the Union doesn't need DC and would be more than happy to dump DC. Hell I didn't do anything to provoke you and this is how you respond...maybe that's why DC has such a low TG population. 

[Fae]

Another word of advice to trans people.  It may be wise to go into the same careers as lesbians and gays.  For example, the nonprofit world, where I work, there is very little discrimination.  There are probably more women and more queer people working in the nonprofit world than any other economic sector, but very few transgender people.  And its not for lack of acceptance, these people are very accepting and the workplace environment is probably ideal.

That may be true, and this is good advice.  The rest of your post, however, is blatantly an attack on Aeyra which was neither warranted nor needed for the purpose of this conversation.  You live in DC, good for you, I honestly hope you're happy there.  You're an elitist, that's great too.  But don't try pushing your own views onto Aeyra's evaluation and start cutting it apart and calling it "silly and unnecessary."  I actually like her ideas, and I'm sure other's here do to.  None of us appreciate your hostility Amy.

As I said before, there is more to live that being trans.  The focus of this evaluation was to give people an idea of where to live if they are TG/TS given the current state of affairs in this country (and not just issues concerning TS/TG but on issues concerning everyone), and the evaluation was based on her criteria, not yours.  If Aeyra wanted to write an evaluation based on your criteria, she would have probably made a post and asked others to contribute ideas regarding criteria, but she didn't.  She took a month of her own time and wrote an evaluation on her criteria, so please show a little respect and say "good job,"  instead of saying it is "highly flawed." 

The rest of the world more or less hates us at this point.  There is corruption everywhere across all sectors of the government, both local, state, and federal.  If you like DC Amy, and can find trans-related services there, that's great.  I'm sorry you're not concerned with issues that affect every citizen in this country, both TG/TS and non-TG/TS.  Don't attack this idea because it doesn't include trans services and doesn't conform to your elitist views about DC being so great.  Not all of us want to be in DC.  Worse case scenario, which I believe is what Aeyra was aiming for here, if the country falls apart we will be more concerned with how to survive than finding trans-related services.  You can stay in DC, I hope you have a wonderful time there.

I am writing this essay to better help those who are considering a move from their current location due to their transition or simply to find a more accommodating environment. Please note that I have my own biases and not all TG/TS folk may agree with what I say here. My ratings of all the states here is based on my direct experience with the local culture in each state and from what I have hear and seen from other TG/TS folk...

...My experience leads me to believe that you as a TG/TS individual are best off in a state that protects most of it's population from discrimination due to gender identity, and is also a live and let live state, meaning no intrusive or nanny state mentality. Your larger states like CA and NY may slip a bit here due to this, but overall they will fare better than say, MO. Also, some of the things I say here might offend some. I do not make some remarks about states because of bigotry, I am a REALIST. Even in 2007 there are plenty of areas in the USA that can be potentially dangerous to transgender people.

In the future Amy, please take note of disclaimers before attacking someone's idea.

~Fae

[RebeccaFog]

 Hi,

   I think this is a good topic, however, we should remember that people naturally have differing points of view.  I really believe that this topic works because, although it is inherently important, it is not something many of us tend to just stop and think about.

   It really is best to state our opinions, be appreciative of the efforts and opinions of others, and try to not become frustrated over the differences of opinion.

   If someone offers an opinion that is not accepted by another person, the person who disagrees should maybe stick to this type of response:  "I disagree. This is why ...."     It doesn't work well for everybody when someone takes the approach of "This is what is wrong with you (or your idea)..."
   Also, if you feel that you are responding while being in an emotional state, it may be better to put off responding for a while.

Just a reminder concerning courtesy.   

Thank you,

Rebis

[Aeyra]

This list is impressive, I hope you don't mind if I upload it. I too have traveled all over the U.S. and have noticed that attitudes change from state to state but they also change from city to city. I once heard of this country referred to as a sea of intolerance with little islands (cities) of acceptance like San Francisco Ca., Minneapolis, Mn. and Madison, Wi. I have found this to be true and would be eager to see this post expanded to cover our major cities too.
Something else I've noticed and I might be wrong about this but if you go just outside a tolerant city it seems to be surrounded by an extra measure of resistance, being more intolerant than might be found at random as if it's an effort by some to compensate for the liberal attitudes next door. Inside a Trans friendly city it sometimes appears that there are  people who feel they need to "fight the good fight" in their eyes and cause problems for transsexuals as best they can. They are also better at spotting Trans people so your efforts to blend in with the population can be undone, while in a more neutral region people tend to be more blinded to Tran sexuality in general. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I wanted to respond on this one but I dragged my feet.  I can believe that cities like Minneapolis and Madison and such have this polarization. I went to Madison a few months ago on a trip and while overall it does seem to accomodate TG people, much of the population doesn't come across as very friendly to us on a personal basis. From my observations most Americans aren't as tolerant of LGBT people as the media puts it. For the record, I'd say that even your die hard Blue Staters aren't very open minded people at all. Why? The reason is the geopolitics in this country and cultural differences. First, the Democrat and Republican parties (Blue vs. Red) are both nationalist political parties. That's the way they are since the ideologies they follow completely ignore three fundamental rules of human politics:

1. Human nature abhors a repressive environment. Like it or not, the more rules you pile onto society, the more restless and polarized society becomes. Many Americans are upset that the Patriot Act was passed since they feel it infringes upon their civil liberties. My personal opinion is that the Patriot Act is awfully tame compared to some of the other laws we have passed before. The Patriot Act was likely passed to try to slow down or stop the sovereign citizen movement, it has nothing to do with setting up a dictatorship or to fight terrorism. Anyways, restricting people more and more and trying to force everyone to live as dutiful soldiers doesn't work in the long run. Yes, this is part of the reason why California is losing a lot of people to Nevada and the Pacific Northwest. California, I hate to say it, has a lot of goofy laws. What works best for society is if you stop trying to hold everyone's hand and give people a choice. The more freedom you grant someone, they are likely to be willing to grant you freedom. This is why if a state passes non-discriminatory laws for LGBT people, you should either lower taxes or get rid of the drivers license requirement or something to balance it out.

2. Allowing one group of people to make all of the decisions for everyone else doesn't work in the 21st century. Like it or not the USA is a military dictatorship; the president can seize people's properties at whim and do what he wants basically. Voting doesn't always lead to freedom. You can't have 535 or so people in Washington making decisions for over 300 million people on even the most trivial of issues. I don't understand the civil unrest over gay marriage; I don't think the government has any business forcing people to obtain marraige licenses or the like. Did you know that the marriage license was designed to originally prohibit people from having interracial marriages? Or that the drinking laws grew out of custom duties?

3. I know I'll step on some toes here but organized religion in any form usually isn't very good at running a country. Both the Democrat and Republican parties are strongly patriotic parties; patriotism by its nature is a religion. Look at all the pomp and flag worship and aggression that takes place during a 4th of July celebration. Also, many people in the Democrat and Republican parties still advocate for religious and pseudoreligious laws to be enacted. Even for religions like Buddhism and Wicca, while they sometimes are tamer than Judaism/Christianity/Islam/etc, they aren't necessarily live and let live faiths. India is predominately Hindu yet they have a caste system much more oppressive than the US caste system. I'm not convinced that any religion that doesn't view the world with an empirical view (they interpret the world and reality with a scientific approach based on viable cause and effect logic) can run a country very well.

Since the major political parties obviously don't follow these three rules, and since 99% of Americans fall into these two groups, I'd say that most people are nowhere near as tolerant of us as you may think. Fact is, both the Democrats and Republicans are a byproduct of American culture and history. The Republicans are likely the socio-political values of the time period between 1860 - sometime in the 1960s. You can even see it in how they behave and act; a good chunk of them literally live like it's the 1950s. The Democrats and their ilk are the politics and values from the 1960s to around 2000. They probably will work somewhat better than the Republicans simply because the values they embrace seem to work in the real world much better, but they still work very poorly. As for the time period from 1791 - 1860, this is the set of values the Constitution Party represents. The Constituion party isn't BLue or Red at all; they are a theocratic political party that seeks to restore the original US Government back to power (I'm not convinced that the USA was ever a viable country from the get-go and the first US Government from 1791 to 1860 was partially responsable for the Amerindian massacres) and impose an evil Federalist policy over the Earth. They won't even be able to get up off their fat butts in the future.

The only groups of people that I think will advocate for TG freedom are the Libertarians and the Greens. BOth parties are the fledgling politics that are coming out now in 2007. BOth of them advocate for more freedom on both economic and social issues, and they also tend to be regionally oriented. I have the most in common with the Libertarian politics but Greens are not far behind them, BTW. Also, in my opinion these two aren't REd or Blue or Purple, they are not nationalist political parties like the other three major ones are. While the Libertarians and Greens differ considerably on their positions, they overall will work the best in the 21st century.

The reason why many of your TG friendly cities are surrounded by suburbs that are very hostile to TGs is simply because the Democrat and Republican ideologies are mutually incompatible. Also, the Libs and Greens aren't compatible to either the Democrats or Republicans. Granted these are generalizations of people but I would say that there are very few 'centrists' in America. Consider too that ten years ago the only people standing up for TG people were, ironically, the Libs and Greens and similar groups. Instead of inflating the government and big business more and more to make up for the screw ups of the past, simply make politics more state and local oriented. If this happens, you'd see a revival of the countries that make up the USA. 

[RebeccaFog]

(quote is clipped down to save space & the full post can be read just before this response anyway)

1. Human nature abhors a repressive environment. Like it or not, the more rules you pile onto society, the more restless and polarized society ...

2. Allowing one group of people to make all of the decisions for everyone else doesn't work in the 21st century. Like it or not the USA is a military dictatorship; the president can seize people's properties at ...

3. I know I'll step on some toes here but organized religion in any form usually isn't very good at running a country. Both the Democrat and Republican parties are strongly patriotic parties; patriotism by its ...

Since the major political parties obviously don't follow these three rules, and since 99% of Americans fall into these two groups, I'd say that most people are nowhere near as tolerant of us as you may think. Fact is, both the Democrats and Republicans are a byproduct of American ...

The only groups of people that I think will advocate for TG freedom are the Libertarians and the Greens. BOth parties are the fledgling politics ...

The reason why many of your TG friendly cities are surrounded by suburbs that are very hostile to TGs is simply because the Democrat and Republican ideologies are mutually incompatible. Also, the Libs and Greens aren't ... If this happens, you'd see a revival of the countries that make up the USA. 

   I pretty much agree on this stuff.
   I think that given time, we'll see the lean mean and hungry movements get some traction.  Our government at this time is worse than bloatware, but it is not my desire to be negative, so i will add that bloatware is often replaced by a better product. 
   I'd like to see a revival of the countries that make up the USA.

signed,

Rebis,  (apparently kissing up)

[seldom]

I am not even going to go into the posts problems.  Once libertarian and the mountain west state came out, the lack of any real understanding and your previous posts on this thread made perfect sense to me.   There is no point in pulling apart your point by point.  Because honestly, you will never really get it.

Live in a big city for 3 years, go to graduate school, and then read your post.  You will probably disagree with everything you wrote and see it as extremely flawed.  Because that is exactly what it is.     

[RebeccaFog]

Being flawed is okay.
I'm flawed.

Please let's not begin picking apart posts.  I believe a simple, "I disagree" or "I disagree because ..." will work really well.


Praying for peace,

Rebis