There was a very interesting post yesterday at bilerico on the Monica Roberts column (http://www.bilerico.com/2008/06/yo_naacp_nbjcwhere_yall_at.php) of two days ago about the goings on in Memphis. It was by Rev. Irene Monroe who, I believe wrote another interesting response a few weeks ago to the
Nashau Telegraph about transgenders.
This woman's idea is:
Quote... I feel that the entry point for full LGBTQ inclusion not only in our black and white queer communities but into mainstream society must begin with transpeople. Why? Because where transfolk enter so too does everyone else. And if folks on the margins can't get with this idea as a social justice issue or moral imperative then they should at least embrace it from a strategically prudent game plan.
In other words, correct me if I have read her wrong, but she is arguing the very opposite of Barney Frank and his yuppie, gay-male allies, in that she's saying that unless trans people are included first there will be no chance to include other minorites in the gender/sexual struggle for full human and legal rights.
I find her logic quite persuasive and would like to hear what others think.
Nichole
It sounds good in theory, but i have to wonder how far does "transpeople" go? Does it include just the straight appearing passable binary identified transpeople? Maybe includes those who are gay too but still passable? The ones who don't pass, but not the binary breaking individuals?
Most people are only concerned just as far as it gets the group that they inhabit acceptance and not an inch beyond that if it could possibly threaten their own position.
If this really does include the margins, even acceptance for those who are happy with being simply a non-hrt non-op TS then it's a step in the right direction. Anything less is simply hypocracy.
I agree with that 100%, JC.
Quote from: JC on June 27, 2008, 02:45:17 PM
It sounds good in theory, but i have to wonder how far does "transpeople" go? Does it include just the straight appearing passable binary identified transpeople? Maybe includes those who are gay too but still passable? The ones who don't pass, but not the binary breaking individuals?
Most people are only concerned just as far as it gets the group that they inhabit acceptance and not an inch beyond that if it could possibly threaten their own position.
If this really does include the margins, even acceptance for those who are happy with being simply a non-hrt non-op TS then it's a step in the right direction. Anything less is simply hypocracy.
Perhaps I have an advantage. I've read other things she's written and I don't get the sense at ALL that she would relegate TG to "passing transsexuals" at all.
I think there are times that our own senses of being outcasts gets in the way of actually listening to others, reading them for the meaning rather than for what we are used to reading in such matters.
I can understand protecting oneself by being sceptical. Don't we all?
But, I think we often tend to miss "what's there" because the voices in our own minds don't allow us to hear what's genuine in another. That requires internal discipline and when I do that, the hypocrisy is my own, not the other person's.
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on June 27, 2008, 02:22:45 PM
This woman's idea is: Quote... I feel that the entry point for full LGBTQ inclusion not only in our black and white queer communities but into mainstream society must begin with transpeople. Why? Because where transfolk enter so too does everyone else. And if folks on the margins can't get with this idea as a social justice issue or moral imperative then they should at least embrace it from a strategically prudent game plan.
In other words, correct me if I have read her wrong, but she is arguing the very opposite of Barney Frank and his yuppie, gay-male allies, in that she's saying that unless trans people are included first there will be no chance to include other minorites in the gender/sexual struggle for full human and legal rights.
I find her logic quite persuasive and would like to hear what others think.
Nichole
I've read various of Rev Irene Monroe's excellent posts at Bilerco. I believe that all struggles for human rights are interconnected. If one person doesn't have full equality, then none of us truly do. So yes, gay rights aren't really complete without protections for gender identity and expression. And our transgender rights aren't complete while there is racism, and sexism, and classism, and all the other isms that I haven't mentioned... And none of our rights as gender variant people will mean a damn thing if we aren't concerned with sustainability of our planet... and so on and so forth. So yes, we all need to march arm in arm, together, until everyone's rights are attained. And we aren't leaving until we've achieved full equality for absolutely everyone.
Zythyra
Obama said, rights are tied to responsibilities and many do not uphold their responsibilities. One reason there are minorities that are not looked at favorable. This does not go for everyone and is not to condemn legal but culturally fringe behavior, it just points out that life is just not a simple thing you can change by laws and rules.
Welcome back, Lisa, you've been away for awhile. Nice to have you back. :)
Nichole