Transgender activists turn on one of their own 

http://www.washblade.com/2008/1-11/news/national/11852.cfm
by LOU CHIBBARO JR
01/11/2008

Less than one year after being fired from her job as city manager of Largo, Fla., because of her status as a transgender woman, Susan Stanton has come under fire from transgender activists, who have called her a sell-out to their cause.


Posted on: January 11, 2008, 06:26:51 AM

---

you can read more about it here:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2008/01/washington-blad.html

to be honest, i think she was right.... _I'M_ embaraced by some transpeople... and once had to walk out of a cafe because the m2f person i was chatting to, kept telling me 'oh if i were a man id so want to f*** (naughty word) you, then pulled thier electric razor out and began shaving at the table... as long as people like that exist, we dont NEED stanton to propogate trans steriotpyes when trans people do a bloody good job of maintaining them themselves. the happy happy accepet everyone attitude is comendable, and lovely, but iirc its about time we got realistic, and shaped up if we want tobe taken seriously, and accepted by society.
R

Well that a much better set of quotes, and SS would not be the first person who ever got misquoted by a news organization. 

I'm sure she is more or less right in the notion that the general public does not understand the sometimes subtle differences, and sometimes vast gaps that exist in the general trans community.  I'm not sure they care to either.  Saying you need to educate is fine, but its of little to no good if the target is not interested in learning. 

I totally disagree with Stanton's view of trans people as well as her stance on non-trans inclusive ENDA.  She feels we need to educate the public about us?  How will we get them to listen to us when even a group who supposedly represents us won't? If we have employment protection under the law more of us will come out.  The more who come out, the more of us there are to educate the public.  It's pretty simple but she can't see that.

And her belief that we can come back later and get transgender inclusion?  C'mon!  If trans people would have killed the bill if included, how on earth can she believe a trans only bill will get passed at a later date?  Or are we talking decades later?

More of us have to be out.  If we believe we will be fired if we come out, we're going to stay in the closet and the education process will take that much longer.  We need protection under the law, plain and simple.

But if the non-trans ENDA passes we should just claim we are gay, lesbian or bi.

Julie

I'm still at a loss as to how SS became a "TG" activist" or a "spokesperson" as she was not selected by any organization, save CNN, who last time I checked was not exactly in the forefront of the TG community, but was, rather a news organization trading sensationalism for advertising revenues.

when you want people to listen, you have to make them think that it is something they want to hear. and sometimes with politics, you must create foundations before building your house, the non trans inclusive ENDA will be MUCH easier to tack trans protection onto, than pass with it inbuit...
R

Don't hate me, but I'm not really sure I want the kind of protection that ENDA will offer.  Everything else aside, being included under ENDA means that at some point somewhere in my work life I will be guaranteed that I have to hear some bigot claim that the only reason I have the job is beucase I'm TS (and that's putting it nicely).

I don't believe in affirmative action either, I'd rather be judged on my merits then let it be believed the only reason I have a job is becuase I'm...

Well for sure there was much more attention spent on the language of the bill then the amazing crop of idiots, morons, self-loathing gay men with 'wide stances,' Diaperman Dave (or, Vitter the S*****r as the New Orleans hookers called him), and total fools inhabiting (occupying it is more realistic) who had to vote on it.  The obvious solution was not to argue about the bill - which was a dead horse anyway, its not like Bush was going to sign it - but on electing a group of people who would pass it in full.

Quote from: Enigma on January 11, 2008, 11:25:33 AM
Don't hate me, but I'm not really sure I want the kind of protection that ENDA will offer. 

Your point is well taken as one thing people have overlooked with ENDA is that it's to some extent window dressing. Yes, it does provide protections when appropriate. It does not, however, really protect you, whether you're trans or gay, because it's not that hard to disguise a non-promotion, non-hiring or a firing for other reasons, except in the event of very clear evidence. It's not hard for management to get any HR folks to endorse a manager's decision to protect the organization, company or even government agency. I've seen similar situations and know from that experience ENDA will only work in the obvious, and people who were discriminated against will need time and money to sue under ENDA, and managers know most don't have that and they (managers) have the full backing and resources of the organization.

As for Susan Stanton, she's entitled to her views, and in part it's the media fault for focusing on her, because I have to ask where are the trans organizations? Are they willing to attack a stereotype transperson in the media for expressing the views many American think? Susan Stanton has the freedom to say what she wants with little impunity except from transpeople, who she can they use to help her as a victim status. Remember she's not seeking our approval but her view of "normal" people.

The best approach, to me, seems to be to go to the media to correct her views and statements, and hope in time she'll fade into the woodwork (or everglades whichever is closer). I doubt she will because it's her meal ticket to the attention she wants. The transcommunity should simply stop inviting her to events and meetings, until she agrees to convey a different message, one of all-inclusion and not the HRC's or hers.

In short, tell her, if she wants attention, go write a book, and then see how far she goes with your views. The community needs to get other transwomen to come forward as better examples who have better life stories. And the community needs to get united for inclusion in ENDA, because despite its flaws, it's there, and empowers employees against management.

[Note.--Susan Stanton says she doesn't accept compensation for her speeches, but if you read her statement, it's says only when she advocates for the transcommunity, which implies she can, and likely does, accept compensation for her personal life. She may not be receiving financial assistance from CNN but her statement doesn't clarify what that means.]

We are wasting a lot of bytes over nothing (one very naive, very uninformed, self-rightous transperson), and not ENDA. Just my $.02.

--Susan--

I think it protects the most, established employee.
Say, you've worked with an org for 10 years, perfect record,
slowly rising career path and well appreciated by all,
and bam, you declare to your manager that in the
next year you'll transitioned. Unless, the whole
company is in a turmoil and cutting jobs left and right,
firing you will be very very hard to justify. Non promotions
could still happen, but again if you're such an important
part of the organisation, maybe there is no one
else but you!

Its if in your first years, or if you a small cog in an
org that enda whatever the form, doesn't really protect you.

Also, HR departments in large organisation (say 50+ people)
are not just following manager orders
these days. They often report directly to the top VP's and
the middle managers don't have much power on what they say.
Unless the top guys want to kick you out, which is not often
the case since they've got no real stake in this, you will be
protected by HR.

The problem occurs is small org where HR is not well defined
as a management function and is too dependent on
managers whim.

Most important to my thinking, a trans-inclusive ENDA puts the government in our corner, giving the appearance of protecting us against prejudicial and bigoted acts.  And that appearance (and perhaps some real action to back it up from time to time and on selected cases,) may stay the hand of those who would take negative action against us solely because what we represent to them revolts them.

In school and in adult life, when I had friends and/or supporters who were seen as powerful and not-to-be-messed-with, I found I had a measure of safety and relief in the shadows they cast, and was left to be more myself.  Bereft of that, I had to be more guarded, and found myself in many battles.

I hope that a signed-into-law, trans-inclusive ENDA will cause the federal government to become and be just such a protector.  ENDA won't eliminate discriminatory behaviour, but it should reduce it to the residual level still experienced by now-protected minorities.

Karen

Stanton is out and speaking her mind.  She is articulate and noticed. Her views may not agree with mine.  However..... it is good publicity regardless what she has said.  Sometimes we miss the ultimate goal while we nit pick the details.

Cindi

Karen, under what circumstances do you ever see a corporate Republican Department of Justice ever enforcing such a law?  Last time I checked we had outlawed monopolies in this country too.  Does not seem to make much of difference these days.  And, regardless of the language, inclusive, exclusive or otherwise, the odds of BushII signing it (or even more remotely the congress over-riding his veto) were, at best, less than zero.  They can't end a war that a pretty huge majority of the American public does not support.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on January 11, 2008, 03:53:43 PM
Stanton is out and speaking her mind.  She is articulate and noticed. Her views may not agree with mine.  However..... it is good publicity regardless what she has said.  Sometimes we miss the ultimate goal while we nit pick the details.

Cindi

Whenever a member of our community is out there getting face time with the public we need to remember the public's POV.  If Stanton says the public is not ready for us the public will say "yeah, right, now go away!"  We're not going to get them to listen on a global scale.  They'll just turn us off.  But when we're working side by side with them, interacting on a daily basis, they have to listen.  We may not be in their ear espousing our views but our mere presence will make them take notice and if we present ourselves with respect and dignity they will know we're just ordinary people.

Yes, Stanton can say whatever she wants to say but she has to be prepared for the reaction from others.  She shouldn't be crying about the criticism.  She should accept responsibility for her words and actions or leave the public eye.

Julie

I doubt that anyone is going to listen on a global scale at any rate.  And the old cooks adage is 'if you can't stand the heat... get out of the kitchen.'  Public speaking creates a forum for public critique.  'Twas ever thus.

Some interesting responses, and much of which I agree with. Many larger corporations won't tolerate a manager's discrimination if it's vested in law. But corporate policy is just that, a policy, and while it can be enforced, it has little if any standing in court. The whole issue is based on the corporation's senior management and their idea about appearances. The question would be if any discrimination ever got that far up the ladder in management. And yes, while HR can be independent and will follow policy, they work on behalf of management, the HR Chief won't put his job and career on the line for one employee, unless the discrimination is obvious outside the law or beyond public relations to resolve. Don't believe me, why are there so many discrimination suits against even larger organizations by transpeople being fired for no reason other than being trans?

My point is that any discrimination can be established not to be discrimination, simply reorganization, new career opportunities (elsewhere), new job requirements, performance issues, employee conflicts, and so on. I spent 14 years in senior management, 7 as a supervisor in a large organization where discrimination was not just condoned but bad managers protected by senior managers. I was also an unofficial employee advocate and had my fair share of discussions with bosses about my future and career both as an employee and advocate. Yes, management can be very supportive and there are some transpeople who successfully transistioned on the job in the same job, but that's generally rare. It's up to the individuals in senior management, and not any policy or regulation - federal gov't not covered by laws but their own regulations, but will if ENDA is passed to include transpeople.

Just my experience. Your mileage (experience) may vary. Thanks for the discussion.

--Susan--

Quote from: tekla on January 11, 2008, 03:55:05 PM
Karen, under what circumstances do you ever see a corporate Republican Department of Justice ever enforcing such a law?  Last time I checked we had outlawed monopolies in this country too.  Does not seem to make much of difference these days.  And, regardless of the language, inclusive, exclusive or otherwise, the odds of BushII signing it (or even more remotely the congress over-riding his veto) were, at best, less than zero.  They can't end a war that a pretty huge majority of the American public does not support.

Tekla, I deal in percentages, not absolutes.  'ever' is such an absolute.

The chances of a Republican Department of Justice enforcing an inclusive ENDA are as slim as them investigating and prosecuting 'alleged' litmus-testing of Justice Department attorneys, or of the disparity between investigating election fraud of republican politicians and same for democrat politicians.

But it is not zero.  They will drag their feet, but they can be made to respond to public pressure.

The same thing with monopolies.  Look at it another way, where would we be if there were no laws against monopolies?  In the present climate of  business freedom/market freedom/privatization-is-good, I can well imagine where we might be if those largely-ineffective brakes on monopolization were not on the books.  Example: FCC ownership rules.  Without them, I'd bet on there being total ownership of all media outlets by one company in several lucrative markets by now.

Of course Dubya will never sign a trans-inclusive ENDA.  But he won't sign a homosexual-only one either.  And the HR cutting and running and passing a homosexual-only ENDA has already been felt in the case of Schoer v Library of Congress, and it was a step back for COL Shroer's case.

In the post to which you commented, I used no absolutes.  'giving the appearance of' is my admission that even with a trans-inclusive ENDA as law, there will still be transgenders who get the shaft, and in ways they won't be able to fight.  But -- percentages -- whatever the political climate, I believe there will be more opportunities for remedy with a trans-inclusive ENDA than without.

Karen

Where TG people have such protection its been in a similar manner.  SF passed the gay part years before the trans part.  You just have to hold their feet to the fire, work to elect those that support us, work to retire those who don't.

And, I know of many people on this board who would object to the rather broad designations that SF uses, as its mostly a presentation based law - (in fact its not a law, its an ordinance, still) which affords everyday (or even once in a while) CDs the same rights as post-op TS people.

yeah in SF is the right to wear what you like, not anything as specific... Something i find unfair, but hey.
better than nothing eh?
Politics is a chess match, you have to go into it with a game plan, because you cannot directly win.
R

Well as that issue debated with there were (broadly) three criteria that could have been chosen.   Full post-op, which is the infamous 'panty check' as there is only one way to determine that (and would exclude a lot of people, perhaps even you - and would also exclude most FtMs - which made it a non-starter from the get go), a note from your doctor and a lot of TS in the area are not under a doctors care (for several different reasons) so that would exclude them, and presentation - so if you walk like a duck etc.

Politics is also a numbers game, and the idea was to include the greatest number, not exclude until you reached the smallest subset.  Added to that is a general tendency in US law to cast laws as broadly as possible, so that factored in to some degree.  So too did the composition of group writing the report which had pre and post op, Ftm and Mtf and 'just' CDs' making a willingness to compromise a requirement so that each group could get some of what they wanted.