Recent developments in the transgender movement suggest an internal conflict between methods proven successful and misdirected anger that only gets in the way.
On the winning side of the ledger are accomplishments at the state and local level. For example, in the past few weeks, both houses of the New Jersey state legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to add gender identity and expression to the state's hate crime law and strengthen school anti-bullying policies. This victory is thanks to the efforts of Garden State Equality and Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey. This illustrates the fact that, as with the fight for marriage equality, the main action currently is in the states, and that is where the bulk of resources need to be directed even as we continue our education efforts nationally.
On the self-defeating side of the ledger is a December letter from Meredith Bacon, board chair of the National Center for Transgender Equality. Speaking for herself, she offered an over-the-top denunciation of the Human Rights Campaign: "NCTE will not work with HRC in the foreseeable future, until the current HRC leadership is completely purged ..." She elaborated, "Not only is Joe Solmonese not to be trusted but neither are the second rank of HRC staff or its Board of Directors or Board of Governors. All of them would have to resign or be fired before we could even contemplate anything like cooperation. In short, NCTE is neither forgiving nor forgetting what HRC and Barney Frank have done to all of us."
To underscore her complete divorce from reality, Bacon also stated, "As long as HRC is controlled by and is dependent upon white, rich, professional gay men, such collaboration may never occur. Getting stabbed in the back is a useful experience only once in a very great while." This combines a tired and gratuitous leftist attack against leading funders of the gay rights movement with a repetition of the lie that disagreement over strategy is a betrayal.
Bacon made an interesting claim: "NCTE and the trans community do not need HRC because the United ENDA coalition has cemented our collaborative relationship with the Task Force, PFLAG, Lambda Legal and 300 other LGBT organizations." This ignores the failure of the United ENDA coalition to sway more than a handful of votes in Congress, as well as the evidence that the gay rank and file strongly disagrees with its all-or-nothing stance. In the left's ideological echo chamber, it is considered self-evident that Barney Frank's successful legislative strategy is somehow the failed one. Earth to United ENDA: Think again. Sen. Ted Kennedy has announced that he will proceed in the Senate with the version of ENDA passed by the House. If that is a sign of failure, let's have more of it.
Unfortunately, Bacon has plenty of company, as shown by the withdrawal of the Massachusetts chapter of the Transgender American Veterans Association from the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition on Jan. 11 after MTPC announced a pledge of $25,000 from HRC. The anti-HRC zealots scornfully reject the civil rights tradition of passing the best achievable bill while continuing to work for further advances.
Disparaging incrementalism and "white, rich, professional gay men" are non-starters. Transgender activists in many states have shown what works: Organizing, educating and focusing on the reality of people's lives. Stories touch people in a way that theory does not. Most Americans believe, at least in the abstract, that all citizens deserve equality under the law. The challenge is to get more Americans to recognize transgenders as their neighbors instead of as an abstracted and demonized "other." This crucial task is undermined by those transgenders (by no means all) who walk around with chips on their shoulders. If you want to insist that your anger is more than justified, I cannot quarrel with you. But unless that anger is channeled productively, it is no more liberating than that of rioters burning down their own neighborhood.
The potential power of a positive approach is suggested by the headway that Sen. Barack Obama has made as a presidential candidate with his embrace of an inspiring message that transcends the politics of racial guilt-mongering. Is that approach guaranteed to yield quick success? Of course not. Transgenders have a long, hard slog ahead. But centering your message on the arc of history bending toward justice is a damn sight more appealing than insulting your allies both in the LGBT community and in Congress.
Meredith Bacon wrote one thing I agree with, concerning the mixture of insider and outsider strategies: "Both of these strategies are valid and may be complementary as long as we all accept that we are working toward the same goals. Our needs are too important for mutually destructive animosity." She might consider taking her own advice.
19 Comments for “Anger Isn’t Enough”
posted by Boo on
The head of HRC stood before a large room full of transgender people and told them that HRC would oppose any version of ENDA that didn’t include gender protections. He lied to their faces. Exactly what word other than betrayal would be appropriate here? NCTE was started specifically in response to the anti-HRC stance of NTAC, and now even NCTE has turned against them. HRC and Barney Frank have demonstrated over and over and over again that they are not on the side of trans people. In the ealier eras of Jim Fouratt and Elizabeth Birch, HRC was at least honest enough to state this openly. Now they’ve developed a different strategy: mouth platitudes about inclusion, take our money, then stab us in the back. As if to underscore they point, they pluck themselves a token tranny in the person of Susan Stanton to annoint as the new leader of the transgender community and trot her around so she can parrot their line about how we haven’t proven ourselves worthy of equality yet.
Much as you may not want to admit it, historically the animosity in the gay community towards trans people comes from two primary sources; second wave lesbian feminists, who thankfully are receding, and white, rich, professional gay men, who are still going strong against us. These may be uncomfortable facts, but they are facts, and you can’t simply wave them away.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Boo writes: “These may be uncomfortable facts, but they are facts, and you can’t simply wave them away.”
You make a sweeping assertion with no evidence and treat it as an undeniable fact. Your generalization about “white, rich, professional gay men” cannot possibly be true, because those people do not all agree. Secondly, excuse me but that whole phrase implies that gay white men are all rich, which is do insultingly idiotic I cannot believe that anyone, no matter how angry or frustrated, would be shameless and clueless enough to assert. I assure you that I, for one, am neither rich nor part of some intellectually monolithic group of “rich gay white men.” To the extent that I enjoy “white skin privilege,” I have been spending that privilege my entire adult life on behalf of equality.
It is routinely assumed by professionally angry and self-marginalizing types that white activists are utterly selfish and self serving in addition to being racist. The facts about them as individuals are never allowed to count, which attitude itself is the very definition of bigotry. For one thing (and screw you if you’re going to make a snide comment in response to this) my own FAMILY is multi-racial. For another, I have worked as a locally-focused activist in D.C. for transgender rights for many years. I played a leading role in pressing the D.C. government to settle the Tyra Hunter case in the late 1990s, an effort which by the way was successful. I would love to have someone explain to me how my efforts for justice for a black, transgender woman were selfish on my part. The vast majority of my efforts as an activist are not for myself at all. What in the world is accomplished by these entirely undeserved insults and the staggering level of disrespect behind them?
As to HRC, they could have handled the whole ENDA affair better, but there is no good reason to assume lies and betrayal when the simple fact is that HRC had to deal with the unfolding reality they faced on the Hill. As to Barney Frank, he devoted most of his testimony on ENDA last year to defending transgender inclusion. The fact that the transgender-inclusive version did not have the votes, and that he recognized the fact, does not for a moment make him anti-trans.
And no matter how many times people say that the imperfect bill’s passage by the House is meaningless because Bush wouldn’t sign it anyway, it remains the case that passage of a bill in even one house improves its chances going forward by giving it the stamp of a winner. The entire history of the legislative process shows this.
No one on the United ENDA side of the fight even bothered to attempt a refutation of Barney’s magisterial 10,000-word speech on the House floor on October 9, 2007, which can be found by a search of the Congressional Record, which can be found oline at http://thomas.loc.gov . I have not even seen an apology from Lambda Legal for their distortion of the single court case they cited in defense of their position, Dawson v. Bumble and Bumble, copies of which Barney distributed at his press conference on October 11 and which prove that the case bore no resemblance to Lambda’s characterization. Dale Carpenter has written about this. So much of the all-or-nothing crowd’s justification of its position is based on ideological blinders and pandering that it buggers the mind.
posted by Richard on
(1) If the HRC said one thing to a crowd of transgender people and then did the opposite, then the should be called on it.
(2) Richard (the author, no relation) is correct that a trans-inclusive bill did not have the votes to pass. Yes, Congressmen Frank is a wonderful man. Yes, political realities are not always pleasant.
BUT, what resources are being allocated to help make a transgender bill viable?
Groups that want to use the LGBT label for fundraising should be able to demonstrate what plans/stragdies/etc they have for the transgender community.
I made a suggstion; train transgender people to be professional lobbyists, public educators and Congressional candidates.
Imagine if their were transgender candidates in every single Congressional district in the next election?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Why do people talk about HRC as if the situation they deal with were unchanging? Why isn’t it at least possible that HRC changed its mind based on changed circumstances and new considerations that arose? Why jump to the conclusion of treachery?
I for one, in my role as an activist, am locally focused. The locality in question, DC, already has a transgender-inclusive non-discrimination bill which GLAA supported. Many groups, from local to national, have worked for transgender inclusion. I don’t think it is fair to ask a generalized question in an accusatory way about the resources they’ve devoted toward a trans-inclusive bill. Why don’t you look up individual groups’ annual reports or mae individual inquiries? My own group, GLAA, has a budget barely into 5 figures, has no paid staff, and does not break down our budget (for such things as postage, copying, advertising and computer expenses) by issue. But we have a record of advocacy and achievement which includes broad-based coalition efforts and defense of all the protected categories in the District’s non-discrimination law, not just the ones that apply to us.
There are plenty of opportunities for interested persons, transgender and otherwise, to become active in advocacy at the local, state, and national level. Various trainings are announced periodically, along with subsidies for those who cannot afford the cost. The problem is finding people who are interested and committed. The reality is that gay people are a small minority, and transgender people are an even smaller minority. Many transgender people are busy enough trying to eke out a living, and do not have time for volunteer work. So the answer is, blame the ones who do volunteer!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Or, in other words, HRC and its supporters are having done to them what they’ve done to thousands of gays who disagreed with them, especially politically; class warfare, accusations of racism, demonization, and decrying of incrementalism.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
But, ND30 (and setting aside your characterizations, since I did not sign up for the HRC defense brigade), HRC’s legislative strategy succeeded. They are being boycotted by people who weren’t supporting them to begin with.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There’s a lesson in that somewhere, Richard, particularly in understanding why screaming fits against Republicans get gays and gay organizations nowhere.
Simply put, they’re not going to pay attention to people who never supported them anyway.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, not only do I agree, I have worked amicably with Republicans throughout my adult life, and have written several articles for Log Cabin’s centrist think tank, Liberty Education Forum.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Transgender is not gay. Gay is men loving men. Being gay does not involve gender confusion. Transgender issues are not my issues. They certainly have the right to work on their issues, but not under the gay banner. I, as a gay man, am under no obligation to offer any of my resources to the transgender community, except to protect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just like everyone else.
posted by Eva Young on
Thoughtful article. I think if ENDA passes the Senate Bush could sign it.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, no they are not the same. One of the reasons the two groups have been linked is because people have perceived being gay as being confused about gender.
As a human, I support equality, and that includes transgendered people. The unfortunate thing is that equality hasn’t happened to all groups at the same time, and some are still waiting for it. While it would be great if all LGBT could reach equality soon and at the same time, realistically I don’t believe that it’s happened. In states, such as NJ, that now have anti-discrimination laws against transgendered persons, there were first laws for gay persons first. I believe this facilitated transgendered persons receiving these protections sooner rather than later.
posted by Ashpenaz on
If you support equal rights for transgendered, why don’t you support equal rights for the unborn? Particularly when there are those who would choose to abort the unborn who are thought to be transgender or gay? Shouldn’t we protect their rights in the womb first?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ashpenaz, I am pro-choice politically but I have also had many interesting and quite civil discussions with members of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL). In moral terms, I have a lot of sympathy for their point of view. For me the political question is, Who Decides? I do not think government coercion is the way to solve the problem. As Germaine Greer has said, if one believes in choice, surely that choice ought to kick in before someone has an unwanted pregnancy.
In biological terms, there is no question that life begins far earlier than birth; but legal personhood has traditionally begun at birth. In other words, legal personhood is not about biology. And legal standards are not the same as moral standards.
As to the prospect that some people would abort fetuses if they knew they would be gay or transgender: surely that consideration must be secondary to the basic reality that a developing human life is involved. If one believes, as I do, that the mother must be the one with the legal right to decide about continuing her pregnancy, then one is not allowing one’s moral qualms to trump a woman’s personal autonomy. I do not take this lightly. I certainly do not consider it a morally neutral choice as some feminists insist. I consider abortion a great tragedy. But I also oppose undue government bossiness. Clearly, many people do not consider this particular brand of government bossiness to be undue. I disagree with them. This is not about my own personal preferences, which would be that there be no abortions because there would be no unwanted pregnancies; and at the very least, that there be no late-term abortions. Sometimes various principles that we hold are in some conflict with one another. We must make morally fraught choices. With that in mind, and while I prefer prevention to termination of unwanted pregnancies, in political and legal terms I have decided that I am pro-choice on abortion. I don’t think there are any perfect or easy choices in such a troubling matter; but I have made my choice.
posted by Ashpenaz on
So, you’re saying it’s OK for a for a woman who believes her child has a genetic marker for gayness has the right to abort that child, simply because she thinks the child will be gay? And you think that protecting the right of that woman to abort her child is more important than the gay child’s right to be born?
Would you have been born if your parents knew you were going to be gay? How many of your gay friends would not have been born if their parents had known they were going to be gay and had the chance to abort them?
posted by Pat on
If you support equal rights for transgendered, why don’t you support equal rights for the unborn?
Ashpenaz, since my post was sandwiched between two of yours, I’m assuming you were also addressing me.
1) While abortion is an important issue, I personally believe it is a different cause than LGBT rights.
2) I personally do not discuss my views on abortion, because IMO, discussions on abortion are unproductive in an Internet forum.
3) At most, I will only discuss the politics regarding abortion.
4) Since this topic wasn’t about abortion, I will not even discuss the politics of it here.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ashpenaz, my disagreement with a woman’s choice does not give me the right to interfere in that choice. Government coercion is not the answer to the tragedy of abortion. I see no point in speculating about who would or wouldn’t have had an abortion if they knew their child would be gay, but since my mother was a devout Catholic, she would never have had an abortion and it would never have occurred to her to “engineer” her child’s specific traits. I think such concerns are overblown.
posted by Richard on
Getting back to the issue at hand; Yes, gender identity and sexual orientation are two unique issues.
However, they are not so far removed from similar sociological-political issues as to be divorced from each other.
Many transgender people have pushed for LGB equal rights.
Frankly, I fault both the supporters and opponents (within the community) of the ‘inclusive’ ENDA bill because neither side wants to talk frankly about what can be done to advance the rights and dignity of transgender people.
Supporting a bill, that you know will not pass, does not do it.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
That’s not true. I (a supporter of Barney Frank’s version of the bill because the inclusive version didn’t have the votes) have talked about what can be done. It’s the old-fashioned retail politics of educating and organizing. Too many people want short-cuts.
posted by bryan on
Transgendered people should enjoy the same rights as everyone else. They’re human beigns. Specifically though, the LBGT did the right thing in acknowledging the nature of politics and the importance of passing this bill with or without the tranny part. Most people are still clueless about transgendered people, and this includes many gay people. Transgendered people have to realize that you can’t slam this down Washington’s throat and have it be all okay. You’re going to have to work far harder than that. People don’t get it – they need to be educated about the incredibly unique experience of wanting to change your gender. It’s extreme.