Barney Frank: Transgender people don't have rights legislation because they wouldn't help lobby

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/09/27/barney-frank-transgender-people-dont-have-rights-legislation-because-they-wouldnt-help-lobby/

Retired congressman Barney Frank has attacked the head of the Human Rights Campaign for apologising to trans groups, and claimed trans people are only excluded from rights legislation because they wouldn't help lobby for it.
The openly gay Democrat, who retired from the US House last year, made the claims in an interview with the GaVoice.
He was reacting to news that Chad Griffin, the President of the Human Rights Campaign, had apologised for his group's previous lack of integration with the trans community, and lack of trans-inclusive LGBT rights legislation.
Mr Frank said: "Chad Griffin's one of those people whose political judgement seems to be off.
"The transgender community had this mistaken view [in 2007] that if Nancy Pelosi waved a magic wand, transgender would be included. And we were insisting to them that, look we don't have the votes, help us lobby.
"Instead of trying to put pressure on the people who were against them, they thought they could just insist that we do it. We said, 'We're trying, but we need your help.'
"The issue was we did not have the votes for an inclusive bill. It wasn't a failure of will. Then the question was, was something better than nothing? Was it better to pass a bill that was protective of lesbian, gay and bisexual people or pass nothing? We tried very hard."
Mr Frank was the first ever openly gay congressman, and in 2012 became the first congressman to have a same-sex marriage while in office.

Barney Frank is cis gender to the core!!  I presume by "lobbying" he means handing out $$$$$ in significant volume. 

Hey, I guess a minority like us aren't really best served by a democracy. With half of people thinking that either we don't exist or are demented sex maniacs, people just aren't willing to support us vocally in public and when we do get rights legislation up, its because of a disgusting action thats been done to a member of the community, not out of any sort of goodwill or human concern for our plight.

Im just disgusted with the democratic process... so ignore me

and of course he meant Money!!!
what else could it possibly mean?

I agree with you both. :/

I'm sorry, but the man has a point. *** Ducking to avoid stuff thrown at me ***

We do tend to think that we don't need to educate people or speak out. We tend to believe that people should just educate themselves.

It doesn't work that way. Every marginalized group in history that won improved legal rights, succeeded because they were willing to put a lot of effort into improving public understanding of their situation.

Whenever I suggest anything like that on these forums, I get massive pushback. I hear things like "why is it my job to educate people. They should educate themselves." "Haters will always hate. Nothing can be done about that." "I don't want to be a trans woman/man. I just want to be a woman/man. So why should I agitate for trans rights." Etc. Etc. Etc.

Black Americans got improved rights through a massive civil rights movement. Women improved their legal status by educating people about the inequality they faced. Gay marriage didn't legalize automatically. It came from lots of people doing lots of work.

If I recall correctly, Barney Frank was all too willing to drop us from ENDA due to his vision of penises in women's bathrooms and such. He has issues...

He's just covering his butt now.

*** Throws roses at Suzi ***

I agree fully hun. I hesitate to post less than popular opinions w being new but you took the words out of my mouth. NO ONE gets something for nothing. History shows that.

Also when did CIS become an insult?

Politicians should care about what's right, not about who lobbies the most. 

Quote from: suzifrommd on September 29, 2014, 09:06:03 AM
I'm sorry, but the man has a point. *** Ducking to avoid stuff thrown at me ***

We do tend to think that we don't need to educate people or speak out. We tend to believe that people should just educate themselves.

It doesn't work that way. Every marginalized group in history that won improved legal rights, succeeded because they were willing to put a lot of effort into improving public understanding of their situation.

Whenever I suggest anything like that on these forums, I get massive pushback. I hear things like "why is it my job to educate people. They should educate themselves." "Haters will always hate. Nothing can be done about that." "I don't want to be a trans woman/man. I just want to be a woman/man. So why should I agitate for trans rights." Etc. Etc. Etc.

Black Americans got improved rights through a massive civil rights movement. Women improved their legal status by educating people about the inequality they faced. Gay marriage didn't legalize automatically. It came from lots of people doing lots of work.

*throws flowers at you and some chocolate*

suzi and this awful person have a point, people. You can't exactly complain how things are when you don't even participate in the fight.

I don't expect anyone to do a good turn for me so if I want something done, I have to do it myself and with other people who think the same way. There are transgender activists, I'm not denying there isn't but can you really expect a small group of people such as Skylar Kergil, Laverne Cox and Julia Serrano are enough to maintain a transgender movement for equal rights and have it progress quickly? Not a chance in hell. Sorry to burst your bubble but if you want equal rights, swallow your pride and come out of that comfort zone you call stealth. Blending in = nothing gained.

Lays her mantel on the ground.

Time for the new trans* to pick it up and put the effort in moving forward.

We have made lots of noise over the years for what is rewarded today.

So who has the will to reach down and pick it up?

Quote from: suzifrommd on September 29, 2014, 09:06:03 AM
Whenever I suggest anything like that on these forums, I get massive pushback. I hear things like "why is it my job to educate people. They should educate themselves." "Haters will always hate. Nothing can be done about that." "I don't want to be a trans woman/man. I just want to be a woman/man. So why should I agitate for trans rights." Etc. Etc. Etc.

I totally agree with you, and I am "out" there educating as I can, which this past week has been pretty heavily. I take part in community and church activities where my Trans* status is well known, and where I am actually getting and performing duties that I never had before, and being seen for it. It is so much fun to be real and not worrying about it.  Not to mention my tax write offs in monetary contributions to NCTE, HRC, TLDEF and TLC.  I will miss one party in San Francisco, but will pick up one in November that should be a great time.

Quote from: patrick1967 on September 29, 2014, 09:26:35 AM
Also when did CIS become an insult?

I was not using the word as an insult.  It describes the position from which he sees Trans* people which is the same as any other person who judges the oil in my lamp by the smoky dim light of his own lamp!!

Quote from: Marcellow on September 29, 2014, 10:30:04 AM
suzi and this awful person have a point, people. You can't exactly complain how things are when you don't even participate in the fight.

one can absolutely complain how things are, regardless of how much one is able to participate in the fight to end one's own oppression. like, what the hell, man? in barney frank's universe, we are not only accountable for defending ourselves from the awful, abusive, dehumanizing behaviour of others, but doing so while the material conditions are stacked overwhelmingly against us, and in addition to that if we don't fill his coffers to his satisfaction, then well, we just aren't contributing to the CAUSE enough.

it's not a realistic expectation from anyone. it's especially not a realistic expectation to ask me, or any trans people, to support politicians and organizations who have dozens of times decided that i don't deserve human rights. it is not my problem or my fault if someone offers to put my basic human decency up for auction. i mean, if that's the way i'm going to be treated by someone who claims to be on my side—when i'm held responsible for the hatred of others, when an "ally" has decided that not enough of my blood or the blood of my sisters has been spilled for the cause—i'm left wondering why i'm even supposed to consider him a friendly face at all.

barney frank has said in an interview with times magazine that he's never felt like part of any majority. but the truth is, as an upper-middle-class white man, he has an immense amount of insulation and safety that many trans people, especially women of colour, simply do not have. it is very easy for him to be out. for a lot of trans people, it's not a question of having a "comfort zone"—it's a question of avoiding abuse, assault, violence, and dehumanizing treatment.

if he wants me to think of him as anything more than a scumbag who has made politically convenient votes that have limited my rights, then it is on him—not me—to prove that he is willing to take a stand for, you know, human rights?

Ok wow. I find I agree w two very different points of view here. Kinz ... I agree that throwing money at politicians I.s
Not the way to go. N I agree that everyone has the right to complain about the status quo.

BUT

I have to tend towards Marcellow's point. Nothing changes by moaning n not standing up. The gay rights movement,  civil rights for ppl of color n women didn't come about by ppl waiting for someone else to do something. They came about because ppl made themselves visible.  They came about because ppl said enough. It also changed beginning on a local level with ppl seeing that the issue n those effected were there.

Barney Frank is a real piece of work.  Expecting more donations from a relatively small group, 40% of whom are unemployed, is pretty unrealistic.  But his attitude is pretty typical from the LGB contingent of our community.  They really don't get us, and they seem to resent the fact that most of us want to blend in and not be activists.  But how can we win over the general public when those who are supposed to be on our side really aren't.

At the same time, I can see that it certainly doesn't help our cause that most trans people blend in and don't force the issue...and for good reason.  But as a result, society's view of us is largely limited to transitioners in the askward stage and the Jerry Springer types.

I had a friend on another site that saw a point I had missed, ENDA failed even without the "T" in it.  As Frank was pushing it, it failed altogether, so how could we take more than a small share of the blame??

Quote from: suzifrommd on September 29, 2014, 09:06:03 AM
I'm sorry, but the man has a point.

You're absolutely right. What Barney Frank said is the exact reason why Chad Griffin had to go make nice at SCC. HRC has a long record of doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the trans community, and when those who were trying to do something for the LGBTQ community as a whole asked for help in mobilizing trans voter support HRC did not deliver.

And for good reason. HRC COULDN'T deliver, and that was due to the fact that trans folks haven't been shown any love and haven't been joining. HRC couldn't muster trans support because they didn't have enough trans folks in their sphere of influence that they could reach. And that was because they've thrown us under the bus too many times for the trans community to be interested in them. So, it was a self-perpetuating problem, but started by HRC.

The notion that "politicians should just do what's right" is naive. Things happen with votes. You either have them or you don't, and they didn't.

All of this points to why trans people need to be more visible and more vocal.

Trans* Voter support?
seriously?
we are a what? a 1 in 10 000 minority, believe it or not per person we are just about the most activist group on the planet!
Even if 10% of trans* voters were mobilised as activist and lets not pretend that this is an unrealistic or insignificant percentage, we still would not have the same power, money or public support that the lgb do.

We are 1 in 10 000, they are 1 in 10, even if every trans person in the US was actively lobbying, the number would still be the equivalent of 1 in 100 LGB's actively lobbying.We are seen as too small by these politicians to matter, even if they got elected by running as allies.

Jo, you're not getting it. We're not talking about individual voters showing up at the polling site. That WOULD be good, though. The Transgender Law Center estimates that as many as 5% of the public are transgender (that is, experiencing some level of gender dissonance), and add to that anyone who identifies as CD, genderqueer and anyone else who may or may not be gender variant and supports gender-inclusive laws and those votes would be meaningful.

No, I (and this is what Barney Frank was alluding to) am talking about the power of lobbying organizations to influence segments of society to endorse various political causes and to elect LGBT-friendly candidates. This is how it gets done. If you are trying to gain support for something in Washington and you want the trans community to weigh in you don't call up individual people, you talk to lobbying organizations. If the total trans population (as I have described it) is as much as 5% then you really don't think anyone's going to personally contact nearly 15.9 MILLION people and ask for support, do you? Nope. They are going to the organizations that supposedly represent those folks and ask them to help out.

But that whole idea was a non-starter. HRC was worried about not being able to make gains for ENDA and other legislation by alienating moderate straight allies if they had included trans folks into the equation. They've continually thrown us under the bus, and thus the percentage of their membership who identifies as trans is very small.

And that has always been the case. As far as I know they have only had one trans person on their staff in their entire history, and that was Allison Robinson (who later went on to SLDN / Outserve and was ousted during a coup within the executive staff). And unless they have changed their own health insurance, even HRC does not offer trans-inclusive health care TO THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES. Yeah, that's some trans-advocacy group we got there, huh?

HRC has a well-known reputation for being not very trans-inclusive, and THAT is why Chad Griffin had to go to SCC to make amends. Aside from making peace, they need to beef up their ranks and they (like the rest of society) are beginning to understand that there are more trans people in existence than anyone thought, and we're starting to become more vocal and visible. HRC desperately wants to cash in on that, and they're hoping that it's not too late.

HRC is going to get a little more feel for the Trans* community, at least in my neck of the woods here in a month and a half.  Another member of this site is an officer and volunteer with a regional segment of HRC and she has recruited folks from the Trans* community to volunteer at a major fund raising event by HRC.  It is going to be fun for a Trans* volunteer team to be present as Trans* for the folks to see.  I was at the SCC conference where Griffin spoke, and he did have several Trans* folks there who are active community leaders who I got to know.  They are the types of folks that I see getting us taken care of at last.  I have my skepticism, but I see enough emerging Trans* workers on the lines today that make it somewhat hopeful.

I do my best to educate one person at a time, its all I can do at least for now.