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 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:

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.