I'm often critical of the Human Rights Campaign for turning itself into the LGBT fundraising arm of the Democratic Party. But it's good to remember that hard-core LGBT activist loonies are even more hostile to HRC, for all the wrong reasons.
A new statement from the San Francisco-based "And Castro for All" attacks HRC for what they claim is "HRC's ongoing refusal to support federal legislation that actually protects all LGBT people from employment discrimination." Actually, HRC does support transgender inclusion in the federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act that passed the House last year; it just didn't withhold its support when House leaders recognized that a bill covering cross-dressing and other transgender behaviors had no chance of passage, while one that dealt exclusively with workplace sexual orientation discrimination had an excellent chance of passing.
(Apparently, both congressional leaders and LGBT activists, including HRC, have now decided to put the whole shebang on hold until next year, when they hope larger Democratic majorities might allow the transgendered-incusive bill to advance. I think that's highly unlikely, but it allows Senate Democrats to avoid voting on sexual orientation protections during an election year.)
In any event, the San Francisco lefties offer a parting shot claiming that HRC's equal sign logo is actually "two gold bars" that:
"represent homosexuals living in the middle of the country-rather than the actual full diversity of our beautiful, global LGBT community."
So all those unhip gay people living between the coasts are not part of the "beautiful diversity" of the "LGBT community," perhaps because they're perceived as ... too white(?), too hard-working(?), or maybe just too non-transgressive? Hey HRC and your job-holding contributors, unconditional support for Obama just doesn't cut it anymore, rock the system-wise.
15 Comments for “Crazy Left vs. Liberal Left”
posted by Bobby on
San Francisco is nothing more than an embarrassment to this great nation. They hate the military, they banned ROTC, they tried to impeach Bush, they protect illegal aliens (including crack dealers), these people have no shame. As far as I’m concerned, the federal government should let them secede from the Union, build a wall around them, and let them rot in their socialist paradise. Oh, and the next time they have an earthquake, keep the national guard out.
posted by Jeff on
There will always be critics either your too left or too right and you just have to be who you are called to be. I think it was wise to stand for ENDA as it was for the reality is that most people and that includes the coast as well have a hard time with transgenders.
Too often we want it all and right now and yet battles are won with strategy, patience and time. Look at the whole race issue this took how many years, how many lives lost, how many people in jail?
The question was posed by Gene Robinson, “are we willing to pay the price” and sadly within much of the gay community I would say no for they can pretty much do as they want when they want. But to get equal rights will take a price and it will only happen as we gather as a people group committed to work peacefully for full equality. And this means the whole nation noting the differences and realizing that California and for that fact San Francisco do not reveal the full picture of what it means to be a gay American.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The fight over ENDA last fall, and the way gay leftists including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have described it since, show the extent to which pandering and wishful thinking have clouded the judgment even of many serious activists around the country. Hundreds of executive directors of state and local groups embraced the strategy of demanding a trans-inclusive bill or nothing.
There has been much denouncing of Barney Frank by people who refuse to address the substantive arguments he laid out in a ten thousand word speech on the floor of the House last October 9. The Task Force even continues to claim that a gay-only version of ENDA would not protect gay people anyway because (the claim goes) they are really discriminated against based on their gender expression. This was conclusively refuted by both Barney Frank and our own Dale Carpenter, but the Task Force and Lambda Legal pay no attention. The one case cited by Lambda last fall, with the funny name Bumble and Bumble, simply does not say what Lambda claimed. Barney actually handed out copies of the Bumble case at his news conference on ENDA last October 11.
All of those executive directors have effectively stated that it is fine to hold employment protections hostage until nationwide transgender advocacy ripens to the point of being able to pass a bill in Congress. These E.D.s know that this all-or-nothing stance goes against the entire history of civil rights legislation. Meanwhile, there is a deeply counterproductive tendency by many advocates to cry “transphobia!” every time someone even asks a question. That’d be a nice trick: skipping over the difficult education part and proceeding right to the victory, like that woman years ago in the Boston Marathon who took a taxi to the finish line rather than bothering to run the race.
Here are links to three columns I wrote on the ENDA flap last fall.
ENDAgate October 18, 2007
Red October October 25, 2007
ENDA: a step forward November 15, 2007
I should note, BTW, that the local group I am active with, GLAA in D.C., was (as far as I know) the only gay rights group that explicitly endorsed Barney’s gay-only version of ENDA, H.R. 3685, which is the one that passed the House in early November.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Here’s another try at the ENDAgate link:
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/commentary.php?ak=3023 October 18, 2007
posted by Jim on
Did someone say “tiresome”? I’m twenty-eight, and the whole “LGBT” amalgamation seems me as an unfortunate and unnecessary historical accident–the product of a confluence of po-mo theory and gay people’s internalization of all the bigoted bullshit they’ve been fed about gay men being feminine and gay women being butch. It takes me about twelve seconds of honest reflection to conclude that my gayness has nothing whatsoever in common with transgenderness. Women are terrific, but I’m not a woman, I don’t want to dress like or become a woman, and I don’t think of my gayness as something that makes me more like a woman than I would be if I were straight. This being the case, I fail to see what it is I have in common with transgendered that requires me to wed my political aspirations to theirs or which justifies conjoining the initials of our respective “communities.”
I shouldn’t have to add that I appreciate the full human dignity of transgendered people and firmly believe that they should enjoy every appropriate liberty and legal protection, including protection from workplace discrimination. But the idea that I must rally with the transgendered in some kind of band of sexual “transgressives” is one I reject. Transgender issues simply are not my issues, and I respectfully decline to take up the banner.
posted by Attmay on
Jim is correct. No woman I know is obnoxiously flamboyant like the stereotypical gay man. Hell, no gay man I know is like that.
posted by Ted B. on
When it comes to “civil rights” and public and political aggitation, I always use the formula “G/L”. The gay male community and the lesbian community aren’t one-and-the-same…they are parallel worlds with few intersections…hence the G-slash-L. THe Bi’s already get their “rights” whne they’re “straight-acting”….and they are fay or lesbian when they are not.
As for the “Transvestite, Trans-genedered and Inter-gendered, etc…” their issues are NOT those of sexual-orientation, but an entirely differnt one; gender-identification. Let them go found their own club…..
posted by Shobha Manaktala on
Since Mr. Rosendall is so proud of his organization taking an exclusionary stance with regard to ENDA, maybe it’s fair to ask how many transgender members his organization (which doesn’t mention them in its name) actually has.
posted by Jorge on
I think GLBT is useful for uniting people behind the protection of vulnerable young people. As activism, I don’t see that I have much else in common with everyone else.
This is quite stupid. The argument over Barney Frank and EDNA should be over. There is nothing wrong with the conflict or debate. It’s a legitimate schism.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Shobha Manaktala demonstrates my point about self-defeating leftists by writing, “Since Mr. Rosendall is so proud of his organization taking an exclusionary stance with regard to ENDA, maybe it’s fair to ask how many transgender members his organization (which doesn’t mention them in its name) actually has.”
I don’t keep track of our member demographics (though in any case we have warm and productive relationships with several leading transgender advocates in D.C.), but it is false to say that GLAA takes an exclusionary policy toward ENDA. We did and do support the best achievable bill, including transgender protections if possible. If the votes are not there for a trans-inclusive bill, we support continued efforts to achieve that goal. The leftists’ insistence on treating this disagreement over strategy as opposition to transgender rights reveals an impulse for shrinking the alliance rather than expanding it. This eagerness to treat imperfect allies as enemies is nuts.
Beyond the particular fight over ENDA, GLAA has a long record of support for transgender equality, the latest evidence for which is the inclusion of transgender-related concerns throughout our latest policy document, which is online at:
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2008/agenda2008.shtml
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, Shobha, if you regard any group that fails to have “transgender” in its name as thereby exclustionary of transgender people and their concerns, you are blinding yourself by dwelling on the most superficial considerations. If you bother to get past the marquee (which for practical purposes must be of limited size) and observe what is going on in the theater, you will find that your prejudicial assumptions about GLAA are false.
Two decades ago, when there was a push to change the Gay Activists Alliance to the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, some of us pointed out that (A) “gay” is an inclusive term for many people, including many self-described gay women, and (B) if we made that change there would be no end to the litany of affinity groups that we would be told we must add to our name as well, or else be accused of dissing them. I am long since fed up with such silliness; if you are wedded to it, so be it. There are even people who take offense if “lesbian” is not always placed ahead of “gay,” because putting “lesbian” after “gay” is subordinating women to men. I am sorry, but some of us have real work to do.
posted by Shobha Manaktala on
Since it’s been made clear by many people on this list that they don’t regard “gay” as having anything to do with “transgender,” if gender identity issues are part of the “real work” Mr. ROsendall is so proud of, his organization’s name should reflect it. But it’s obvious from his comments–checking on the “demographics” of his organization hardly requires the methodologies of the U.S. census–that his group has no transgender members. And instead of lashing back at justified criticism, he would probably do well to ask why.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Shobha writes (about me), “it’s obvious from his comments–checking on the “demographics” of his organization hardly requires the methodologies of the U.S. census–that his group has no transgender members.”
It doesn’t surprise me that you regard the lack of evidence as evidence, but you are wrong. We do have TG members, I just don’t happen to know how many. I already pointed out that GLAA has warm and productive relationships with a number of local TG advocates, and provided a link to our latest policy document which raises TG issues all through it. You really are wrong, Shobha, and plainly so by the evidence. But the professionally angry aren’t bothered by the evidence.
posted by Richard on
Their are plently of things — good and bad — to be said about the major LGBT rights organizations in America.
The HRC does plently of good work at the federal level, but often falls apart when it tries to impact state/local policy. They also tend to prefer talking down to local/state LGBT people, which is ok (if done nicely) if you training people to be lobbyists, but not when you are planning a major event that is suppose to be THE national gay pride event.
The people who run it, have a decent sense of how the political process-government really work and how things happen and get down.
The downside to that, is that they often hold events and gatherings which only members of the upper-middle class and wealthy (celebrities, politicans, businessmen, etc.) could even dream of attending. Which, often end up — due to issues that are not really in the hands of the HRC — including LGB people of a certain race, political beliefs and cultural background.
The transgender community has always gotten the short end of the stick, when it comes to the allocation of resources and attention within the LGBT community. Part of the problem is that if ENDA gets passed, some people do not believe that their will be a serious effort made to pass transgender civil rights legislation.
A lot of what was going on — over the inclusive nature of ENDA and tossing people under the proverbial bus — was really due to a lack of trust between the largely centrist HRC and the more leftists activists and a break downbetween the HRC and local/state gay activists (left, right and center).
Like I said then, yeah its better to have an imperfect ENDA then no bill at all, but that does not mean that you totally forget about the transgender community. If a civil right bill that includes gender id cannot get passed now, then can anything else? If no bills can get passed then can gay groups agree to set aside specific funds for transgender issue? Can we set aside money to train transgender people to be educators? economists? candidaes? lobbyists?
posted by Terrell on
Jim says,
“I don’t think of my gayness as something that makes me more like a woman than I would be if I were straight.”
What a stupid and thoughtless statement (the sine qua non of a gay man is a sexual attraction to men, which most people would consider as making a man *much* more like a straight woman). Luckily, what Jim thinks of his gayness is largely irrelevant. The most recent research shows straight women and gay men have much in common (see NYT article on similar brain functioning). So the emerging science does tend to show that gay men are more like women than straight men are like women. And, gay women are more like straight men. (duh?)
Jim’s post reeks of sexism. Ironic that he calls his detractors bigots. It’s great that it only takes Jim 12 seconds to realize that his gayness has nothing to do with transgenderness. I think that’s fantastic for Jim (since he obviously detests the idea that his gayness might make him “feminine” in any sort of way). But now, Jim, I’d like to introduce you to the rest of the world (what you call a “historical accident”), where a lot of gay men are actually more feminine and lesbians more butch, and most of them are perfectly fine with that “confluence” of “po-mo theory” and “internalized bigotry” (ha!).
Someone’s certainly hung up gender stereotypes, but it’s not the LGBT amalgamation (psst! there’s that elusive common thread you couldn’t find!). Now chill out, Jim, and go watch some football.