Most gay and lesbian organizations have become LGBT organizations in recent years. If their missions now include transgender people, why don't their boards?

Most of the articles I read were careful to point out that the network had prudently sought the advice of LGBT media watchdog GLAAD in advance of introducing Zarf/Zoe.
(I'm a member of the board of GLAD, an LGBT legal rights organization that is not related.)

Ironically, at about the same time, I received at home a fund-raising letter from GLAAD. After initially using the term LGBT, the letter spoke only of the concerns of gay people. The problem is that some transgender people are not gay. I'm sure GLAAD's letter would have been worded more inclusively if they had at least one transgender person on their board. So why don't they?

Well, good question, possible answers.

1.Glaad, wants to include trans for market share, not neccesarily for helping that group.

2. Glaad, has fear of the trans community and wants to marginalize us from effective rights solutions we as trans can acquire, sooner than they.

3. Glaad is just ignorant

4. Glaad, has a glimpse of the master plan.

Yes, well it really is inappropriate for the Gay and Lesbian community to aliagn us, with them but than refuse to put qualified trans on the board.... but wait, of cource that is it as trans we are not necessarily gay or lesbian and so like them dreaded bisexuals are never going to be treated fairly by a gay and lesbian organization.... Silly me, the answer was there all the time.

I find that always the case that the GLB has been trying to align themselves with the TQ but don't know how. There are so many of us who just want to be silent that only a few come out as trans. We want our laws changed, but we want someone else to do it. We just want to fit into society but the ones who suffer are the ones who don't pass that well or the ones in transition. I have found that I really don't need any law to protect me as I have the gender clause, in other words, I'm female and you can not discriminate against being one gender or the other.
Sheila

Quote from: Sheila on April 12, 2007, 09:01:47 PM
I have found that I really don't need any law to protect me as I have the gender clause, in other words, I'm female and you can not discriminate against being one gender or the other.
Sheila

A gender clause, wow, we're can I get one of them clauses, what country Shelia?, provided you one of those. I want to get one of them ASAP.

peace

Jane

Quote from: JaneX on April 13, 2007, 10:27:23 AM

Quote from: Sheila on April 12, 2007, 09:01:47 PM
I have found that I really don't need any law to protect me as I have the gender clause, in other words, I'm female and you can not discriminate against being one gender or the other.
Sheila

A gender clause, wow, we're can I get one of them clauses, what country Shelia?, provided you one of those. I want to get one of them ASAP.

peace

Jane

Hi Sheila!!!!, what is with all the exclamation marks. So you think that in America that being fully gender corrected and I would add being fully conformed and with birth record and new social security number allows you to fight discrimination against you on the basis of gender? ROTFL

You might be right to rely on those supposed constitutional rights, but have a big legal war chest to go against a discriminatory act, which you dispute on the ground of gender discrimination. No if someone discriminates against you and you file a gender based discrimination action, you will almost assuredly loose your privacy to your gender correction and than from that point on you will be trying to convince the court you are legally and medically female.

You will most definitely loose you standing as a woman in your community, so even if you win you loose eh!

Please check out this link to see the legal battles I have filed and won, but each was a cost of my community standing as female.


http://groups.msn.com/EqualrightsforGenderCorrectedpersons

The Bill of rights is a false hope inspiring document, used by the powerful to instill a false hope in the soon to be trodden on masses of America.  Ok...a bit melodramatic but you get the ideal.....

That is of course my opinion relevant to my own experience and investment of over $50,000.00 in legal fees and six years out of my life.

Peace

JaneX

I think that it is simple ommission. There aren't very many of us willing to be public with the organizations. Many of us are not gay. They are trying to be inclusive by attaching the T thing to the acronym. Frankly, I'm thrilled that we get as much mileage as we do through the gay and lesbian organizations. This is clearly something that they need not do.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on April 14, 2007, 05:24:07 PM
I think that it is simple ommission. There aren't very many of us willing to be public with the organizations. Many of us are not gay. They are trying to be inclusive by attaching the T thing to the acronym. Frankly, I'm thrilled that we get as much mileage as we do through the gay and lesbian organizations. This is clearly something that they need not do.

Cindi

Hi Cindi there is never anything that simple as to be a simply a simple omission. I frankly think that we in our community are being hurt by what is effectively a forced and than unrepresented association by the Gay and Lesbian groups....
You do remember the Woymns festival were, pre op transsexual were not allowed to attend, but it was ok for FTM's to attend.... that was a whole big simple omission I suppose as well.  , yup them feminists are such close, upfront and friendly allies of ours...lol

JaneX