House cuts transgender people from hate crimes bill
San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/28/MNAGSFEAR.DTL&feed=rss.news)
By Carolyn Lochhead
9/28/2007
'(09-28) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Even as the Senate passed a hate crimes bill sought for a decade by gays and lesbians, House Democratic leaders decided Thursday to strip transgender people from another long-languishing civil rights bill, generating dismay in the gay community and furious but fruitless lobbying for more time'.
Damn you to hell, Barney Frank. >:(
I am too disgusted to actually speak my mind about this right now. I'd be banned for sure for using the language that is roaring through my head right now.
I hope the ENDA bill dies the ignominous death it deserves and that the right thinking portion of the populace rises up in universal condemnation of this selling out of the weakest and most needy of all the LGBT community. If ENDA passes without the trans inclusion, we will NEVER get our rights.
I am truly disgusted beyond what words can describe.
Emelye
Quote from: Emelye on September 28, 2007, 08:00:46 PM
I am too disgusted to actually speak my mind about this right now. I'd be banned for sure for using the language that is roaring through my head right now.
I hope the ENDA bill dies the ignominous death it deserves and that the right thinking portion of the populace rises up in universal condemnation of this selling out of the weakest and most needy of all the LGBT community. If ENDA passes without the trans inclusion, we will NEVER get our rights.
I am truly disgusted beyond what words can describe.
Emelye
Hi Em, this is Ell.
i am not so sure that the GLB "sold out" the T in the GLBT. i heard that Rep. Frank had been working very hard to get trans included, but finally caved in because there was a broad lack of support by other
Democrats.
however, i frankly don't understand why the GLB would stick its neck out for us, anyway. i don't go to GLBT clubs anymore, because i don't feel at all welcome there. in fact, the vibe i get is that they wish i would just get lost. what does GLB have to lose by getting rid of us? the fact that they have stood by us and spoken up on our behalf for the last 10 years is what confuses me. maybe that phase is coming to an end. maybe the new trend is, the GLB have decided that they don't really like us, after all. and, if we are a political liability, maybe they think they'll be better off without us.
-ell
Well, I went to a meeting of the Arlington Gay and Lesbian Association last year--they hosted a meeting of Equality Virginia, which I belong to-- and the gays gave me a warm welcome, they were ecstatic that they actually had two trans people, me and a friend, attending. They told us, "We'd been wishing for years we could get some trans people to attend but we never saw you." I said if we were invisible in years past, it's because we were scared and hiding. Now we feel it's safer to be out. At least Arlington is a friendly place, not so much the rest of Virginia.
1. The TS and IS community chose to merge with the LGB for purposes of MONEY! Merging resources. I believe that is called using them.
2. The LGB community gains the right to marry if all goes as they plan, and it is going to get very heated in 08' and they are using the TS and IS community as well.
The using of each other was agreed to by a majority of those that have been active in this arena. Those that are standing on the sidelines your always free to jump in and be part of the solution. If the TS and IS community had the resources to stand on their own, rights would be further along, joining in with the LGB community was a way to get support that we were not providing for ourselves with so many people in hiding or too afraid, whatever the case may be. The LGB community has resources that the T and I alone did not.
When the right to marry issue hits the waves in 08' the Intersex community is the one in position to save the LGB community, get involved folks and you may be suprised what is happening behind closed doors and in public summits is a lot of work to help YOU!
Quotewhat does GLB have to lose by getting rid of us? the fact that they have stood by us and spoken up on our behalf for the last 10 years is what confuses me. maybe that phase is coming to an end. maybe the new trend is, the GLB have decided that they don't really like us, after all. and, if we are a political liability, maybe they think they'll be better off without us.
Or maybe it is because we have finally begun listening to your voices and heard what you had to say. And what you told us is that you aren't queer, and so, not in need of special protection. What would trans-whatever people need protections for if they are really just regular str8 men and women? Heterosexual men and women are in the majority, and their rights are covered by the current laws. They don't need any special help or aid against discrimination. They just need to be left alone. And that is what you are getting. Left alone to your own devices.
So, down the road, don't complain about being abandoned. You told us you didn't need us or our help, because you are not different. And if you didn't lift a finger to help your own cause, or raise your voice to do the same, than you reaped what you sowed.
Those not willing to fight for their own rights with the time, talent and treasures at their disposal, deserve none. Besides, hiding is so much a better strategy than outing yourself.
Right? It even worked for Anne Frank for a while.
Queers have gotten to this point because we are not afraid to stand up for ourselves, to donate our time and money, and because we are willing to fight. My guess is that if trans-gendered people had created a groundswell of public sentiment by working toward this bill, that it might have happened. But as I am often reminded, the strategy is to blend in and hide in public, and depend on other people to fight your battles for you.
My sympathy goes out to those from the trans-community that are not interested in assimilating into the heterosexist world. You are the people that had something to lose.
Thundra,
Personally I take a lot of offense to what you have said in here, and I know a lot of LGB people that would also be offended with your behavior! The trans and Intersex community is working hard with the LGB community on educating those that are actually out there on the front line to make political change as well as advanced provider care.... where have you been on the front line?
I am a strait trans intersex male that transitioned my identity 17 plus yers ago. I blend just fine thank you! I am married, I live a rather traditional life, with the exception of one thing.... I AM VERY ACTIVE in fighting for rights and providing education. I educate the LGB, I educate college students, I speak on National Panels, I speak on educational panels for care providers, and I have done indepth sociological research, yes under my name and publically published, look me up on Barnes and Nobles if you like. But don't come in here and tell me I don't exist, and that all of us that can blend just run away and hide.
I have been up three times this week in the middle of the night with suicidal people on my phone calling from some state in the US needing someone to talk to. I work on legal rights issues, human rights issues, and most of all I respect the dignity of all people including the LGB people that I cannot actually relate to, but ALWAYS stand up for!
What your saying is just like what Gays did to each other not that long ago, or are you too young to remember your own history? Are you taking for granteed your freedom to not be in the closet? Yes that is a serious question, because if your older and you do remember, then what you say is even more offensive, and you should really be ashamed.
I agree, there is a need for more to come forward. But what your saying is down right off the wall and out of line and you bet I take offense. I bust my butt standing up for gay rights in a very conservative southern states, and I do take heat for it, but I do it because while I have no clue what it is to be gay, I do have a clue to what your history is. And if I cannot relate on a human level I would hope I would keep my mouth shut.
So do me a favor don't speak as if I don't exist, don't speak as if you know what is really going on out here on the front when the front is nationwide and you are not aware of all of us out here. And I am very interested in what you have done.... I would love to work with you if you are being a productive member of our merged movement and out here on the front line, but if all your doing is slamming those of us who blend, don't respond to my offer to work with you, I would find you too hard to tolerate due to your own discrimation, the very thing that has oppressed you, your gonna do to others? What's the deal with that? That is a ritorical question for the record.
Peace
Taylor
Quote from: Thundra on September 28, 2007, 09:35:35 PM
Or maybe it is because we have finally begun listening to your voices and heard what you had to say. And what you told us is that you aren't queer, and so, not in need of special protection. What would trans-whatever people need protections for if they are really just regular str8 men and women? Heterosexual men and women are in the majority, and their rights are covered by the current laws. They don't need any special help or aid against discrimination. They just need to be left alone. And that is what you are getting. Left alone to your own devices.
So, down the road, don't complain about being abandoned. You told us you didn't need us or our help, because you are not different. And if you didn't lift a finger to help your own cause, or raise your voice to do the same, than you reaped what you sowed.
Those not willing to fight for their own rights with the time, talent and treasures at their disposal, deserve none. Besides, hiding is so much a better strategy than outing yourself.
Right? It even worked for Anne Frank for a while.
Queers have gotten to this point because we are not afraid to stand up for ourselves, to donate our time and money, and because we are willing to fight. My guess is that if trans-gendered people had created a groundswell of public sentiment by working toward this bill, that it might have happened. But as I am often reminded, the strategy is to blend in and hide in public, and depend on other people to fight your battles for you.
My sympathy goes out to those from the trans-community that are not interested in assimilating into the heterosexist world. You are the people that had something to lose.
i wasn't expecting to hear from you. would you please calm down, my dear?
i've only just started transitioning this summer, and now i feel like i'm somehow being dragged into the fray. by the neck.
my take on the difference between G and T is that trans men and women
are in fact more true to the
idea of traditional male and female gender roles. but that certainly doesn't make us less queer. yes, in fact, that makes us the queerest of the queer.
don't be fooled by any trans girls who try to make you think otherwise. if they want to go stealth, you and i can't stop them. but the harder they try to assimilate, the queerer they will be.
-ell
Quote from: Ell on September 28, 2007, 10:44:58 PM
if they want to go stealth, you and i can't stop them. but the harder they try to assimilate, the queerer they will be.
Wait... how so? I'm not sure I know what you mean here?
Thing is, I'm NOT "trying" to assimilate. It's just... happening. THEY... people... have assimilated ME.
~Kate~
QuoteI would find you too hard to tolerate due to your own discrimation, the very thing that has oppressed you, your gonna do to others? What's the deal with that? That is a ritorical question for the record.
Well, that's interesting. Because that is exactly what I see happening here on this site.
Let me ask YOU a question. If you are working to expand protections for the trans-gendered community, do you support protections for all forms of gender expression, or just those that YOU deem appropriate? Ala, people like yourself, that as you put it, blend in? Because that would be supporting the status quo, and supporting the status quo is repressive to other people not in your ballpark. That is true regardless of sexual orientation.
I'd also like to know exactly why str8 people need special protections under the law? Str8 people that conform to traditional gender roles blend in. So, if they are just normal people, why do they need to be included in civil rights protections codified specifically into law? Or are you saying that there are two different groups of people we are talking about? Because the people gnawing on my ear keep insisting they are just normal men and women. If that is the case, they don't need the protections afforded by ENDA, do they?
I have been around quite a while sir, and as I recall, the trans-community came to us seeking help and legal aid, not vice versa. They needed our resources, not vice versa.
As far as taking offense, I've been taking abuse from all quarters for some time from immature people that don't even know their history. So speak to your own before you come after me sir.
Quote from: Kate on September 28, 2007, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: Ell on September 28, 2007, 10:44:58 PM
if they want to go stealth, you and i can't stop them. but the harder they try to assimilate, the queerer they will be.
Wait... how so? I'm not sure I know what you mean here?
Thing is, I'm NOT "trying" to assimilate. It's just... happening. THEY... people... have assimilated ME.
~Kate~
Aw jeez, Kate, i'm so happy for you, but i still hate you!
Now that you're accepted as a she, do you use the women's restroom at work?
but, as for your question, what i'm saying is, no matter how much we may appear to be women, we are not women. that's queer. now as for being female, i am naturally more female than any female i know. that's very queer. lots of GG's don't care much about building their personalities. i do care about it. a lot. that's queer. Queer, by definition, is a little bit, somehow, off. a little odd, you know,
counterfeit. the better the counterfeit, the more queer.
-ell
Uh, yeah,
Thundra, please, ratchet down the whatever...
Not everyone who's got a different opinion
than you is a mortal ennemi.
By the way, I've beaten two times by mobs
of crazy teens in my 20's, 10+ punching and kicking,
good thing I stayed on my feet and was pretty
good at protecting my head and both
were in public places in broad daylight
(one was in a bus just in front of a police
station, I kid you not). Still, got my glasses broken,
twice, a bloodys noses, swollen jaws, and hundreds of
of bruises from these wonderful experience.
So, I think I know what abuse's about...
That being said,
There's several different crowds here.
There are TG that are not really TS as classically
defined. I'm not sure the current bill was meant
to protect them. Because, for many, the
fact that they are not medically recognised makes
them just weird (not saying I agree) and thus
not worth protecting. That's where TS were just
10 years ago (and to many, its still the case).
For the "classical TS" (TM)
I think the protection we need is to
prevent right wing nuts from: preventing
us from ever being able to be "woman"
under the law. Like that would remove
something from other women; from
harassing us because of our difference
regardless of our protection as women
(since we would be targets of
special harassement regardless if we
pass or not, even post SRS)
Quote from: Thundra on September 28, 2007, 10:59:35 PMI'd also like to know exactly why str8 people need special protections under the law? Str8 people that conform to traditional gender roles blend in. So, if they are just normal people, why do they need to be included in civil rights protections codified specifically into law? Or are you saying that there are two different groups of people we are talking about? Because the people gnawing on my ear keep insisting they are just normal men and women. If that is the case, they don't need the protections afforded by ENDA, do they?
I have to agree that straight people don't need protection and that those heterosexual trans people who pass are included in that group. ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill were not written for those people.
Those of us who identify within the queer community, however, and those of us who do not perfectly pass, need these protections as much or even more than the rest of the GLB portion. We are more visible and bear the biggest brunt of the hate and discrimination because of that visibility.
Yes, I agree that there are two different groups of people in the trans community. We are all normal men and women with extraordinary pasts and some of us are queer. The others aren't and they are not the people who need protection. So those working against trans inclusion in ENDA are working against other queers. Why? I can only wonder if it isn't the entrenched transphobia that we still see all to often even in the GLB community
It annoys me too that many trans people go into stealth and stop advocating for what's right as part of their strategy for staying hidden. Yet I can perfectly understand why they do it. It's a personal choice based on who they are and the conditions they find themselves in so who am I to judge them? If they want to hide their past and deny their true identities, I can ignore them. They don't count anymore in our fight.
The divisiveness that this circumstance has brought out in the GLBT community at large, as well as here at Susan's, distresses me to no end. The T portion of that community is queer! Plain and simple, and they acknowledge that fact by identifying as such. Those trans people who wish to hide aren't part of this community and I hope people will be able to see that fine but very important distinction.
hugs & smiles
Emelye
Quote from: Ell on September 28, 2007, 11:03:45 PM
no matter how much we may appear to be women, we are not women.
-ell
We? "we" is way too many people, Ell. I respect your opinion but disagree with it.
Also, let's keep in mind that the choice between out and stealth is just that, a choice, an entirely personal decision without any expectations or obligations.
tink :icon_chick:
Quote from: Tink on September 29, 2007, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Ell on September 28, 2007, 11:03:45 PM
no matter how much we may appear to be women, we are not women.
-ell
We? "we" is way too many people, Ell. I respect your opinion but disagree with it.
tink :icon_chick:
you're right!
i wouldn't expect you to get what i'm saying, because you are a bit IS.
IS has a level of acceptance, medical acceptance, that TG and TS will never reach.
So, you are the exception. you are truly legitimate, and if
you say you are a woman, and not queer, i totally accept that.
now that i think about it, Kate is a bit IS too. but she always sounds as if she has TS angst, so i often think of her as TS rather than IS.
Sadly, i am not IS at all.
as TS, my legitimacy is questioned at every turn, as is my sanity. as is my right to exist on this planet.
-ell
IS? That's news to me! ;D but by some people's definition (people from this site), I guess I am IS. I wasn't referring to my status as IS though as it is questionable if I hold such status. I was just referring to my status as a woman. Like someone else said here. I am not special, I am not exceptional, I am not unusual, I am just a woman like zillions of other women who were born with XX chromosomes. I think that it is about time for the TS community (note what I said, TS community) to realize and accept that. We are not rarities (no offense intended), we are just regular men and women.
tink :icon_chick:
I'm suprised there are people out there who would vote for ENDA so long as there wasn't transgender protection. I would have thought it an all or nothing proposition for most, given that most of the populace of crazy right winger nutjobs lump us all together anyways. I don't really understand how in their minds we are somehow worse than anything else.
Also if they pass the sexual orientation aspect of the bill, would a transgender person be able to seek protection under that if they were lesbian, gay, or bisexual? Like say it's a part of your queer lifestyle, and they are discriminating against it? Or no? Like what if people are fine with me being transgender, but they see me with a girlfriend, get disgusted, and use my ->-bleeped-<- to discriminate against me, even though what they are really mad at is my lesbian or bisexualism?
Quote from: Tink on September 29, 2007, 10:10:53 AM
IS? That's news to me! ;D but by some people's definition (people from this site), I guess I am IS. I wasn't referring to my status as IS though as it is questionable if I hold such status. I was just referring to my status as a woman. Like someone else said here. I am not special, I am not exceptional, I am not unusual, I am just a woman like zillions of other women who were born with XX chromosomes. I think that it is about time for the TS community (note what I said, TS community) to realize and accept that. We are not rarities (no offense intended), we are just regular men and women.
tink :icon_chick:
Hi Tink,
i wouldn't drop that IS status so quickly if i were you.
however, since you seem to be saying you'll relinquish it at least for the duration of our discussion,
and you are willing to accept
only a TS status for the duration of our discussion, then yes, i would say you are queer. i mean, that's the definition of what queer is. look it up. and i don't mean it in a derogatory way. you
are very special. you
are very exceptional. you are someone i'd love to meet, and i know that i would cherish your friendship. and i think if you go through a list of active members on this site, you will find that a very large of number of trans people here are also quite exceptional.
if one were not going to at least try to be an exceptional woman, what would be the end result of transitioning? GG's everywhere would say "well, _________ is ok, but she's a bit of a bimbo, you know."
Tink, you are queer. Really queer. and i mean that in the tenderest and kindest way i can possibly say it.
-ell
Quote from: EllTink, you are queer. Really queer. and i mean that in the tenderest and kindest way i can possibly say it.-ell
LOL ;D Okay Ell. I believe that you truly believe that, Ell; however as I said, I don't agree with it regardless of what a zillion of dictionaries state. (what can I say? I'm a very stubborn girl). Incidentally, thanks very much for the sweet comments :)
tink :icon_chick:
I am surprised by the entire tone of this conversation! what I seem to be hearing is that since people who choose to live in thier target gender role completely do "pass" and they just want to live thier lives then people think they don't need the same right and protections as everyone else? I know several gay and lesbian couples who choose to just live thier lives and not be active in fights for rights (my sister and girlfriend being one of those couples!). when they go shopping they don't hold hands and kiss because of fear of reactions so most times people probably think that they are just friends out shopping together. so just because they don't want harrassed does that mean they don't need the protections and rights we all want for our selves? there are plenty of people who could be classified under the GLBTQ banner that just choose to live thier lives quietly does that mean that they should be left out of these protections? I define myself as a lesbian woman (although I do have this annoying birth defect!) I have been out all dolled up and I have "passed" well enough to have men open doors and smile at me and when I am finished with transisition I plan to live as a lesbian but I also plan to be active in support for "transgender" people as well! I thought the idea of equal rights bills was so that everyone was treated equally (including people who choose to live in stelth!) I thought that these fights were about the right to choose how we live our lives without discrimation and harrassment! if this is the case how can people who choose to live in stelth be told that they don't deserve the right to these protections. what if no matter how deep of stelth someone lives in somehow someone found out then would it be ok for them to be harrassed? I guess I am just not that intelligent I am just confussed doesn't everyone deserve the rights and protections to live thier lives how they choose!
and as far as hetro people not needing protections in highschool I hung around several gay men it is just where I felt comfortable and at that time I was presenting as a hetro male because of fear. I was jumped and severlly beaten because I hung around gay men was it ok that I was jumped since I was presenting as a hetro male? I think everyone deserves and needs protections and rights and the freedom to choose how to live thier lives!!
I guess that people get upset when some of us say that we don't want to be out and proud and "assume that we don't do anything for the community". The fact of the matter is that no one here knows what person A or person B does. Yes, they may choose to be stealth and again that is their right, but just because they have chosen not to wear the TS label on their foreheads does not mean that they are against TG people and do nothing for the community. It is always wrong assumptions of this nature that create this type of tone in the discussions. Tsk tsk ..
tink :icon_chick:
Quote from: Tink on September 29, 2007, 12:07:19 PM
I guess that people get upset when some of us say that we don't want to be out and proud and "assume that we don't do anything for the community". The fact of the matter is that no one here knows what person A or person B does. Yes, they may choose to be stealth and again that is their right, but just because they have chosen not to wear the TS label on their foreheads does not mean that they are against TG people and do nothing for the community. It is always wrong assumptions of this nature that create this type of tone in the discussions. Tsk tsk ..
tink :icon_chick:
well I guess it just goes back to what they say about when you assume!!
by the way Tink on a lighter note I haven't seen anything new about Peter Pan in a long time do you have him tied up in your closet?? LOL
I noticed that Barney Frank included this in his written statement:
"One of the problems I have found over the years of discussing this is an unwillingness on the part of many, including leaders in the transgender community, to acknowledge a fact: namely that there is more resistance to protection for people who are transgender than for people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual."
Frank noted that gender identity was only first incorporated into ENDA this year-- "a fairly recent addition to the fight" -- and argued, " We are on the verge of an historic victory that supporters of civil rights have been working on for more than 30 years: the passage for the first time in American history by either house of Congress of legislation declaring it illegal to discriminate against people in employment based on their sexual orientation."
This is the same type of horseshi.....uh, rose fertilizer that HRC has been spouting for years. I noticed many GLBT groups signed a letter in opposition to dropping inclusion of trans people but HRC didn't sign it. And then the people at HRC wonder why many trans people think HRC is composed of backstabbing....well anyway those of you who have known me for years know what I think of HRC.
Beverly
Quote from: Tink on September 29, 2007, 11:39:59 AM
Quote from: EllTink, you are queer. Really queer. and i mean that in the tenderest and kindest way i can possibly say it.-ell
LOL ;D Okay Ell. I believe that you truly believe that, Ell; however as I said, I don't agree with it regardless of what a zillion of dictionaries state. (what can I say? I'm a very stubborn girl). Incidentally, thanks very much for the sweet comments :)
tink :icon_chick:
You're welcome!
Quote from: Ell on September 28, 2007, 08:59:49 PM
however, i frankly don't understand why the GLB would stick its neck out for us, anyway. i don't go to GLBT clubs anymore, because i don't feel at all welcome there. in fact, the vibe i get is that they wish i would just get lost. what does GLB have to lose by getting rid of us? the fact that they have stood by us and spoken up on our behalf for the last 10 years is what confuses me. maybe that phase is coming to an end. maybe the new trend is, the GLB have decided that they don't really like us, after all. and, if we are a political liability, maybe they think they'll be better off without us.
-ell
Nobody is better off without us, my dear sweet sweet Ell.
Posted on: September 29, 2007, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: Ell on September 28, 2007, 10:44:58 PM
my take on the difference between G and T is that trans men and women are in fact more true to the idea of traditional male and female gender roles. but that certainly doesn't make us less queer. yes, in fact, that makes us the queerest of the queer.
don't be fooled by any trans girls who try to make you think otherwise. if they want to go stealth, you and i can't stop them. but the harder they try to assimilate, the queerer they will be.
-ell
You amaze me. (in a good way)
signed,
Rebis - the queerest of the queer :)
Oh, thank you Rebis. You're very kind!
-ell
Quotequeer (kwîr) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
queer·er , queer·est
Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
Slang Fake; counterfeit.
Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
Offensive Slang Homosexual.
Usage Problem Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.
NOUN:
Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual person.
Usage Problem A lesbian, gay male, bisexual, or transgendered person.
TRANSITIVE VERB:
Slang queered , queer·ing , queers
To ruin or thwart: "might try to queer the Games with anything from troop movements . . . to a bomb attack" (Newsweek).
To put (someone) in a bad position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Perhaps from Low German, oblique, off-center, from Middle Low German dwer; see terkw- in Indo-European roots
OTHER FORMS:
queerish (Adjective), queerly (Adverb), queerness (Noun)
Usage Note:
A reclaimed word is a word that was formerly used solely as a slur but that has been semantically overturned by members of the maligned group, who use it as a term of defiant pride. Queer is an example of a word undergoing this process. For decades queer was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of people to whom this term might apply still hold queer to be a hateful insult, and its use by heterosexuals is often considered offensive. Similarly, other reclaimed words are usually offensive to the in-group when used by outsiders, so extreme caution must be taken concerning their use when one is not a member of the group.
Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation. not applicable in katia's case. i'm as normal as it gets. :laugh:
Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious. not applicable in katia's case either. eccentric? sorry?
Slang Fake; counterfeit. maybe true for ppl that regard their womanhood or gender identity as fake. not applicable in katia's case either. if i were to see my gender as fake, i wouldn't be katia now, would i?
Feeling slightly ill; queasy. ha ha ha. my gender is not an illness. nope. not applicable either.
Offensive Slang Homosexual.
Usage Problem Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people. ahhh key word: [offensive slang]. i don't relate to it so it doesn't apply to me either. if other ppl want to call me queer, fine. i've been called a "bimbo" in the past too. am i a bimbo? no. same thing with queer. capiche?
From Transgender equality: A handbook for activists and policymakers (http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/TransgenderEquality.pdf)
(Top page here)
(http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/trans_equality)
Publication Type: Report
Date: June 19, 2000
Quote from: Page 51Misconception #1: "Including trans people will kill the bill"
...It is often voiced by GLB people who fear
that lobbying for a trans-inclusive bill will undermine efforts to secure civil rights for
gay people. Perhaps because of this fear, trans people were excluded from almost 80%
of the local laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in
employment that were enacted from1996 through 1999.
In fact, the fear that including trans people "will kill the bill" is
almost always exaggerated and based far more on unfounded speculation
than on a realistic assessment of what is possible...
...Conversely, experience has also shown that nothing is more destructive of efforts to win civil rights protections for our communities than internal
conflicts and divisions. Those conflicts drain our collective energies and engender bitterness
and mistrust that may poison working relationships for years. They also play directly into the "divide and conquer" strategy of our opponents, who are only too
happy to see us focusing our limited resources on battling one another. In the long run,
making a good faith effort to work for and include trans people is by far the most pragmatic
strategy.
--Someone please tell Barney and Nancy that.
Karen
Quote from: Katia on September 29, 2007, 05:51:48 PM
Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation. not applicable in katia's case. i'm as normal as it gets. :laugh:
ok, by adding the :laugh: after your most serious reply is grammatically equivalent to monty python's nudge nudge wink wink say no more, which is to say, it negates it.
thus
Bob is a 10 means B = 10
but
Bob is a 10 :laugh: means B ≠ 10 or even B = -10
so when you say
I'm as normal as it gets :laugh: it means I'm
not as normal as it gets
is that what you meant? or are you saying that you're really, honestly, truly normal? because what is the big deal, really, if you are or you aren't? will it really matter in the long run? i'll be back to check on you later. now i'm going to go dance.
QuoteDeviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation. not applicable in katia's case. i'm as normal as it gets.
As normal as it gets
for a lesbian? Or has that changed now too? Your right to choose of course. But if you are lesbian, i.e. homosexual, you are queer. Sorry to have to break that to you love.
QuoteI guess that people get upset when some of us say that we don't want to be out and proud and "assume that we don't do anything for the community". The fact of the matter is that no one here knows what person A or person B does. Yes, they may choose to be stealth and again that is their right, but just because they have chosen not to wear the TS label on their foreheads does not mean that they are against TG people and do nothing for the community. It is always wrong assumptions of this nature that create this type of tone in the discussions. Tsk tsk ..
Nobody cares what you do with your life poofy-girl. Nobody cares if you are stealth or not.
But in regards to people's regard for their comrades here, why make people guess? Let's just get that into the open. Someone posted earlier that they support the rights of transitioning people if they follow the rules. So, why not let everyone here know where you stand on a personal basis. If they are not transitioning, or planning to transition, or if they choose to express their gender in a manner inconsistent with traditional male and female roles, do you support their rights to be protected under the law? By you I mean anyone reading this.
See, transitioning people, or people that have transitioned and are stealth, complaining that queers do not support their rights by dropping the current ENDA proposal are blowing smoke in my opinion. Because if those same people aren't concerned about their comrades here on Susan's being left unprotected, than they have no moral imperative to complain about queers.
And since most people that have transitioned
seem no longer feel that they need those protections, from what I gather here, then they only
seem to feel they need said protections in their transitory phase. So, if they support the current ENDA proposal, what they also
seem to be saying is that they support the rights of other people,
like them, to do the same thing as them. Which kinda infers that the people left behind that they don't
seem to hear here are SOL. That
seems to sum it up for me.
I have no problem supporting an ENDA bill which includes protections for all forms of gender expression, whether traditional, non-traditional or GF. So, until we can get that all-inclusive bill to pass, perhaps in the next election cycle, why not wait? Why protect some forms of gender expression, but not others? Or, more importantly, is that the aim of some people here? To purposefully leave some people out of those protections?
I don't think that there is a certain tone in these discussions, so much as there is a schism in how disparate groups of people here view the world. Some people just want to be themselves and respect the rights of others to do the same, creating a healthy diversity of behavioral types. Other people choose to assimilate and support the heterosexist regime that represses other people unlike themselves, destroying diversity in the process.
I don't think Tink could be construed to be queer by any sense of the imagination. ::)
;) ;D
Quote from: Karen on September 30, 2007, 01:00:32 AM
Quote from: Page 51...Conversely, experience has also shown that nothing is more destructive of efforts to win civil rights protections for our communities than internal
conflicts and divisions. Those conflicts drain our collective energies and engender bitterness
and mistrust that may poison working relationships for years. They also play directly into the "divide and conquer" strategy of our opponents, who are only too
happy to see us focusing our limited resources on battling one another. In the long run,
making a good faith effort to work for and include trans people is by far the most pragmatic
strategy.
--Someone please tell Barney and Nancy that.
Thanks--I'm going to!
Edit: I sent mail to Pelosi using the e-mail form from her web site:
http://www.speaker.gov/contact - however, Frank's site does not give out his e-mail address, and he has it set up so only residents of his district can e-mail him. He also says snail mail to Congress can be delayed for weeks while they make sure it doesn't have anthrax. That leaves telephone calls--Frank's DC office number is (202) 225-5931. I quoted the Task Force transgender equality handbook and added:
The decision to exclude transgender from ENDA is seriously wrong. I am a transsexual woman serving her country, whose career and livelihood may be affected by your decision. We are talking about real people's lives and just now you have perpetuated injustice and discrimination against a whole class of your fellow citizens. I urge you to reinstate transgender inclusion in ENDA.
Your decision is proving seriously detrimental to the LGBT equality movement. The Republicans are now laughing at us--for years they have wanted to divide us, and we have remained strong in solidarity; the harm that they have not been able to do, you have just done to us. I urge you to reconsider.
whooo hooo :laugh: hella cool posts.....
thundra. dont mess up w/my princes >:D
i'm dancin :icon_dance:
Quote from: BeverlyAnn on September 29, 2007, 01:44:28 PMThis is the same type of horseshi.....uh, rose fertilizer that HRC has been spouting for years. I noticed many GLBT groups signed a letter in opposition to dropping inclusion of trans people but HRC didn't sign it. And then the people at HRC wonder why many trans people think HRC is composed of backstabbing....well anyway those of you who have known me for years know what I think of HRC.
I had been skeptical of HRC for a long time, because of the past history you allude to. But last year, after talking to my friend, one of the leading transgender activists in the DC area, she said they're genuinely supporting us now, so I was persuaded and signed up with them.
The latest statement from Solmonese (http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/09/statement-from-.html) says:
QuotePassing an inclusive ENDA is the right thing to do for our community, our economy and our country. However, we're facing a stark reality.
House leadership and the bill's sponsors very firmly believe that if the House votes on an employment non-discrimination bill without gender identity, that legislation will pass—again, it will pass even without the support of the GLBT organizations.
After trying everything at our disposal to change this outcome, we are just beginning to come to terms with what that means.
Since 2004, the Human Rights Campaign's policy has been to only support civil rights legislation that is inclusive of gender identity. That's why we fought tirelessly for and won Congressional approval for a fully inclusive hate crimes bill. We've been fighting to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for more than a decade. The breaking news that the House has decided to move forward on a non-discrimination bill that is not inclusive of gender identity is devastating. The Human Rights Campaign remains dedicated to the fight for full equality for our entire community and, in light of this new reality, continues to consult with members of Congress and our lobbyists to determine how we can achieve that goal.
(bolding mine)
I'm not sure how to parse this-- is he supporting transgender inclusion in ENDA or not? I am turning skeptical again, and until I see a clearer statement from them, I don't think I can endorse HRC.
Quote from: Hypatia on September 30, 2007, 05:34:47 AM
I'm not sure how to parse this-- is he supporting transgender inclusion in ENDA...?
hardly. the HRC were celebrating a victory immediately
after the Trans language was cut from it.
Quote from: Thundra on September 30, 2007, 04:56:02 AM
poofy-girl.
Poofy? Hmmmm.....hopefully this is NOT a personal attack, Thundra. I REALLY hope you meant this:
Quote from: wikipediaPoofy is also a slang adjective used to describe something that is soft/fluffy and puffy but has a sense of firmness to it, generally used to describe hair or soft objects.
Poofy can also be used to describe something that gives a positive emotional feeling, such as an animal that is very loving or even a friend or sibling with whom you have a very strong relationship. This sense of the word is derived from the slang (see above) which describes a soft or fluffy object.
and not this:
QuoteDefinitions
poof
poofter
noun
1. offensive, slang
A male homosexual.
Derivative: poofy
adj
Effeminate.
Etymology: 19c: from French pouffe puff.
Quote from: Thundra on September 30, 2007, 04:56:02 AM
I don't think Tink could be construed to be queer by any sense of the imagination. ::)
;) ;D
You are absolutely right, here. Kuddos to you....
tink :icon_chick:
Thundra,
You bet I believe in protecting ALL people and I do so in all that I do. It seems as if you assume that because I live my life in the straight community as other males do, that I am incapable of protecting the rights of others that do not live life as I do? Come on I am by far not that shallow. I have no problem with people and the way in which they feel free to express themselves. It is all our rights to choose for ourselves what works for us. It is not your right, my right or anyone elses right to claim being superior over another group of people or an individual.
It appears to me that you have some personal issues towards straight TS and or IS persons that make choices differently than you do. Don't reflect that out on others, there is no justification in doing so.
As for your statement on my history... you need to go back up and read the first post I put in this thread before I responded to you. You will find that I did indeed address the money issue and the TS/IS community getting that support from the G community. But it is a two way street, and there is give and receive in both directions of the relationship. I did not however share what I personally feel in regard to this, because what I personally feel and what is politcally needed may not be the same. My focus is on what is realistic, not idealistic.
Take Care,
Taylor
Quote from: Thundra on September 30, 2007, 04:56:02 AM
QuoteI guess that people get upset when some of us say that we don't want to be out and proud and "assume that we don't do anything for the community". The fact of the matter is that no one here knows what person A or person B does. Yes, they may choose to be stealth and again that is their right, but just because they have chosen not to wear the TS label on their foreheads does not mean that they are against TG people and do nothing for the community. It is always wrong assumptions of this nature that create this type of tone in the discussions. Tsk tsk ..
Nobody cares what you do with your life poofy-girl. Nobody cares if you are stealth or not.
But in regards to people's regard for their comrades here, why make people guess? Let's just get that into the open. Someone posted earlier that they support the rights of transitioning people if they follow the rules. So, why not let everyone here know where you stand on a personal basis. If they are not transitioning, or planning to transition, or if they choose to express their gender in a manner inconsistent with traditional male and female roles, do you support their rights to be protected under the law? By you I mean anyone reading this.
I don't think that there is a certain tone in these discussions, so much as there is a schism in how disparate groups of people here view the world. Some people just want to be themselves and respect the rights of others to do the same, creating a healthy diversity of behavioral types. Other people choose to assimilate and support the heterosexist regime that represses other people unlike themselves, destroying diversity in the process.
well I guess since i read this I am one of the "yous"! I think people should be allowed to express themselves in whatever manner they see fit as long as it is not hurting anyone (in a real way not ina way that they believe thier moral senses are being hurt!) and as long as there is no public nudity involved (sorry I just don't want my kids to see some things yet!) and I believe that they should be protected in thier rights to do so. I do not believe one group should be singled out for attacks weather they be different colors or different sexualities or different genders (birth or identified) or the lack of feeling as if they fit into any gender exclusivly or weather they have certian handicaps or on the basis of age! I think everyone should be treated equally and this includes weather they decied to be out and proud or weather they decied to live in stelth.
I know that most probably don't agree with what i am about to say but this bill affects everyone weather they know it or not! as long as basic freedoms and protections are denied to any group of people based on any percieved differences then eventually it could turn out that whatever group of people you belong could one day be singled out and discrimated against. I do not know exactly how to feel about what has gone on about this bill but I know that I am not going to blame any group of people for the actions of a few individuals weather or not they belong to these groups. these are the actions of individuals not the entire groups of people. once we start in on blamming entire groups of people for the actions of individuals in that group that is how discrimation is carried out in essance! how can any of us fight against discrimation while we are discrimanating against others I find that to be an act of Hypocrisy!
QuotePoofy? Hmmmm.....hopefully this is NOT a personal attack, Thundra. I REALLY hope you meant this:
Oh please! I know the rules. I may disagree and try to incite a deeper level of discussion at times, but personal attacks are not my thing. I can throw a jibe with the best of them, but if I want to insult someone, they probably won't even realize it.
I can see where you are coming from. The nasty slang term for homosexual male that I am accustomed to, is calling someone "a poof." I was using the term poofy interchangebly with foofy which might have been a mistake on my part if it caused confusion in that regard. From my POV, calling a homosexual male "a poof" is denigrating because it is comparing a male person to have attributes similar to or the same as a foofy or poofy girl, which is in effect calling him effeminate - the greatest insult in more machismo circles. Femmy women are foo-foo, or foofy or poofy. It is who they are - they can't change it or feel the need to change it.
They are secure in their identity.
If I used that same comment around femmy GF's of mine, they would not even know to take it that way. Put another way, if I tried to insult the average woman by calling her effeminate or gay as in homosexual, they would laugh at me. Because it makes no sense to do so. It's non-sensical.
But taking the backgrounds of the people here into consideration, I will watch for it in the future.
Quote from: taylor on September 28, 2007, 09:34:06 PM
When the right to marry issue hits the waves in 08' the Intersex community is the one in position to save the LGB community, get involved folks and you may be suprised what is happening behind closed doors and in public summits is a lot of work to help YOU!
Hello Taylor,
i am very impressed with your knowledge in these important issues. and i wish to introduce myself, because i think you are one of my new heroes! my name is ell, and it is a real pleasure to meet you.
would you care to elaborate on what you've said here?
-ell
Quote from: redfish on September 30, 2007, 12:07:02 PM
I think the issue is not necessarily people going stealth in general, but specifically those who go stealth and stab others in the back while in such a state.
Additionally, I'm thinking it is being discussed whether people who go stealth should really have a say or not in what goes on in the activism front regarding queer rights, seeing as they have removed themselves from the community. Or something.
Just trying to clarify things so the thread doesn't get all wonky-like.
I appricate the attempt to clarify things ( clarity never hurts!) but I think that these are issues of basic human rights and as long as someone is human I believe they should have the right to have say in anything that concerns human rights. (anyone with non-human friends I am sorry but I just will not listen to your cat or dogs view on the subject!).
I am sure there are alot of people who feel betrayed by some of the actions stated as back stabbing but I don't know if that is good enough reason to take away the right to have say in something that concerns human rights!
Quote from: Hypatia on September 30, 2007, 05:34:47 AM
Quote from: BeverlyAnn on September 29, 2007, 01:44:28 PMThis is the same type of horseshi.....uh, rose fertilizer that HRC has been spouting for years. I noticed many GLBT groups signed a letter in opposition to dropping inclusion of trans people but HRC didn't sign it. And then the people at HRC wonder why many trans people think HRC is composed of backstabbing....well anyway those of you who have known me for years know what I think of HRC.
I had been skeptical of HRC for a long time, because of the past history you allude to. But last year, after talking to my friend, one of the leading transgender activists in the DC area, she said they're genuinely supporting us now, so I was persuaded and signed up with them.
The latest statement from Solmonese (http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/09/statement-from-.html) says:
QuotePassing an inclusive ENDA is the right thing to do for our community, our economy and our country. However, we're facing a stark reality.
House leadership and the bill's sponsors very firmly believe that if the House votes on an employment non-discrimination bill without gender identity, that legislation will pass—again, it will pass even without the support of the GLBT organizations.
After trying everything at our disposal to change this outcome, we are just beginning to come to terms with what that means.
Since 2004, the Human Rights Campaign's policy has been to only support civil rights legislation that is inclusive of gender identity. That's why we fought tirelessly for and won Congressional approval for a fully inclusive hate crimes bill. We've been fighting to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for more than a decade. The breaking news that the House has decided to move forward on a non-discrimination bill that is not inclusive of gender identity is devastating. The Human Rights Campaign remains dedicated to the fight for full equality for our entire community and, in light of this new reality, continues to consult with members of Congress and our lobbyists to determine how we can achieve that goal.
(bolding mine)
I'm not sure how to parse this-- is he supporting transgender inclusion in ENDA or not? I am turning skeptical again, and until I see a clearer statement from them, I don't think I can endorse HRC.
All the facts can be found here:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49439.asp
Quote
On Thursday, 11 other organizations, including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Stonewall Democrats, joined NCTE in opposing removal of the transgender protections from the original bill. The Human Rights Campaign said it did not "assent" to stripping trans language from ENDA but had yet to indicate how it will proceed now that two separate bills have emerged
In hindsight, perhaps, but shouldn't our representatives in the activist organizations as well as in Congress have known that the trans provisions would be the hardest to sell? And knowing this, couldn't they have focused on gay and lesbian people who were gender variant to provide testimony to the committees and such to cover both bases?
More and more I suspect that we've been sold a bill of goods, coddled and mollified until crunch time came and then we were thrown under the bus as a sop to the opposition.
Why did the HRC not foresee this? Why didn't trans issues come up more in the HRC Presidential debates? Why were the witnesses to the congressional committees that were overseeing this bill apparently all "passing" gays? Why do we now need separate hearings and education for the Congress?
Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I'd love to be mistaken so my growing cynicism does not blossom into full scale bitterness. I wonder how committed Barney Frank and the congressional leadership, along with the HRC, really are to trans equality. The results seem to speak for themselves.
not smiling much lately,
Emelye
Quote from: Emelye on September 30, 2007, 07:48:33 PM
In hindsight, perhaps, but shouldn't our representatives in the activist organizations as well as in Congress have known that the trans provisions would be the hardest to sell? And knowing this, couldn't they have focused on gay and lesbian people who were gender variant to provide testimony to the committees and such to cover both bases?
More and more I suspect that we've been sold a bill of goods, coddled and mollified until crunch time came and then we were thrown under the bus as a sop to the opposition.
Why did the HRC not foresee this? Why didn't trans issues come up more in the HRC Presidential debates? Why were the witnesses to the congressional committees that were overseeing this bill apparently all "passing" gays? Why do we now need separate hearings and education for the Congress?
Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I'd love to be mistaken so my growing cynicism does not blossom into full scale bitterness. I wonder how committed Barney Frank and the congressional leadership, along with the HRC, really are to trans equality. The results seem to speak for themselves.
not smiling much lately,
Emelye
Well, Barney Frank is a gay man, and the gays and lesbians represent the *gay* votes. Plenty of reasons for Nancy to make it look like she is doing everything for the gay voters and for Barney Frank, the reason is obvious, he is a gay man, and he would benefit from the bill and neither of them nor the HRC would lose any sleep over losing any trans voters, since they are so marginalized. I think Hillary is also very popular for the HRC, so I think they are all bunch of slick politicians that are out to court the GLB votes, and appear to care about trans people but don't really because they can afford to piss off some trans people, but not the GLB people.
They would never admit not caring about trans people, but their actions speak louder their than words. Their actions show that they don't care.
If every minority has to wait till there is a wide acceptance to receive protection under the laws, than what the hell do we need politicians for?
Anyone can do their jobs. Anyone without courage and honesty, that is.
Btw, The HRC seems like a very partisan group which has deep connection with the Democratic establishment.
On wikipedia,
QuoteAndrew Sullivan has been critical of the HRC calling them "a patronage wing of the Democratic party, designed primarily to get its members jobs in future Democratic administrations or with Democrats on the Hill (even while Howard Dean treats them like the help)."[4]
Not that I would take the words of Andrew Sullivan, i love his book on gay marriages though (but i think he is a conservative), but I have the impression that HRC is not very "activist" (read very mainstream and corporate like) , like same sex marriages and trans right. I think, Hillary is against same sex marriages, after all, but the HRC seems to love her.
Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSPxGmePSiA
QuoteThey would never admit not caring about trans people, but their actions speak louder their than words. Their actions show that they don't care.
Where I can see where you might feel that way, here is the opposite POV. Maybe their actions show that the transgendered "movement" needs to get one of their own elected to fight for their rights? Queer people have been active for years with money and volunteer efforts acting on their own behalf. While we had to win over the support of str8 politicians, it took one hell of a long time to even get the hate crimes bill to a vote.
Then along comes the "T"-movement asking to piggyback onto our work. Look. I can't say it enough. If you are not willing to stand up and be counted and to work toward fighting for your rights, than you cannot blame anyone else. The whole stealth thing works against you in that regard. Everything has a price, and the price for blending in is having no voice when the chips are down.
On top of all of that, queers realize that ENDA does not protect all people equally. So, rather than deep-six themselves and their own agenda, they decided to cover their own a**. Can you blame them? Plenty, not all, of the transitioning population do not stand up for those around them that don't want to transition, but merely to express their own individuality. When the "T" part of the movement becomes all inclusive, than you can bitch about being left behind, but not a moment before.
This thread has run its course and is now locked for good.