Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pulled out as keynote speaker for a major Human Rights Campaign fundraising event following demands from transgender activists angry about HRC's embrace of political reality.
HRC, for those who haven't followed the ongoing saga of transgendered activism holding gay rights hostage, dared to support a version of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that the House passed last fall, and which would bar workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. HRC did so after congressional Democrats made clear that the bill would have no chance whatsoever if it also covered transgendered behavior (including, it's presumed-although the vagueness of the provision gives rise to debate- cross-dressing at work). HRC has long supported transgendered rights legislation and reportedly agreed to delay further action on ENDA this year (the Senate has been silent) in the hope (unlikely, in my view) that a transgendered-inclusive bill might pass next year.
Nevertheless, transgendered activists have waged war against HRC, in part to fill their own fundraising coffers, and certainly to further their own power within the "progressive" LGBT movement. And apparently Villaraigosa, who hopes to be elected California's governor in the not too distant future, has agreed that transgendered activists will be calling the shots when it comes to gay rights, as do "many prominent gay rights leaders [who] already had agreed not to attend the event," as MSNBC reports.
Note: As I've written before, I'm ENDA-neutral, but still appalled at the pc genuflection to transgendered activism. As for ENDA, gay libertarians are firmly against it, opposing all laws telling private-sector employers who they can or can't hire. I see ENDA as less intrusive than other anti-discrimination measures-i.e., no assumed "disparate impact" requirement that hiring reflect regional racial/ethnic breakdowns (leading to de facto race-based hiring mandates), or that drug addicts be kept on the payroll because they have a disability. ENDA advocates overstate what it will accomplish, but I believe it would, as a spillover effect, help put the nail in the coffin of governmental discrimination against gays, which would certainly be a good thing.
More. Reader "avee" comments:
Many post-op transgendered individuals get married to (what are now) opposite-sex partners in states that prohibit same-sex marriage, and their marriages are recognized by the federal government. Maybe they should boycott marriage as long as it's denied to gays and lesbians, since they are demanding that gays and lesbians boycott equal rights protections that don't include them.
That seems fair.
25 Comments for “Transgendered in Charge”
posted by Richard II on
I would agree that if you want to advance legislation, especially human rights leg, you need to understand how the system works and work within, often gradually.
However, transgender people are not simply trying to get a few ‘sheckels’ from guilty feeling LGB people. Transgender people have given a lot to the LGBT movement and have gotten little in return for their intevestment.
People who correctly point out that an ‘inclusive’ bill cannot pass now, often seem unable to have a serious conversation with the transgender community about what can happen now.
posted by avee on
Many post-op transgendered individuals get married to (what are now) opposite-sex partners in states that prohibit same-sex marriage, and their marriages are recognized by the federal government. Maybe they should boycott marriage as long as it’s denied to gays and lesbians, since they are demanding that gays and lesbians boycott equal rights protections that don’t include them.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
avee writes, “Maybe [post-op transgendered individuals] should boycott marriage as long as it’s denied to gays and lesbians, since they are demanding that gays and lesbians boycott equal rights protections that don’t include them.”
Sure, but asking a group of people to voluntarily refrain from exercising a right hardly balances out the categorical denial of that right to another group.
My own local gay rights group, GLAA here in D.C., supported efforts to persuade Congress to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA last fall, but when the Democratic leaders in Congress indicated that a whip count showed they didn’t have the votes for it, we supported Barney Frank’s gay-only version. Those who have denounced Barney for that bill have still not bothered to refute his masterful 10,000-word speech delivered on the floor of the House last October 9.
NGLTF a few months ago was still claiming that a gay-only bill wouldn’t even protect gays because gender noncoformity is (they claim) more prevalent as a basis for discrimination than sexual orientation per se. This claim echoes an argument made last fall by Lambda Legal, but Rep. Frank and IGF’s own Dale Carpenter have emply refuted it, showing that the only case Lambda cited (one “Bumble & Bumble”) was misrepresented by Lambda. Barney’s staff distributed copies of the Bumble ruling at Barney’s press conference on ENDA on Oct. 11, 2007 (which I attended) to show how that case was being misrepresented. And that is the only case that Lambda has cited in defense of its claim that gay-only protections would not work. This has become an article of faith on the left, evidence aside. Or rather, it has become a loyalty test. As someone who has been falsely accused of being anti-transgender in the past, I can understand why some would decide that the limited prospective benefits of ENDA are not worth the vituperation from the all-or-nothing crowd. But it is sad indeed that the pandering has been so widespread.
It is highly unlikely that the vast majority of executive directors of activist groups that signed on to the “United ENDA” coalition last fall–which embraced the all-or-nothing stance of the transgender activists–are unaware of the long history of success of the incremental approach to winning civil rights. What is really happening here is pandering on a massive scale. Many transgender persons have angrily claimed that, if a gay-only ENDA passes, trans rights will be forgotten for many years. How in the world is that going to happen? Are they and the hundreds of groups in the United ENDA coalition all going to disband or drop dead?
By contrast to the flight from reality at the national level, here in D.C. we have already won transgender equality, and GLAA and HRC, along with NGLTF and transgender groups, have joined forces to defeat an effort by the D.C. Office of Human Rights to roll back transgender protections via a change in the implementing regulations. Here is a link to HRC’s strong letter defending transgender protections in this case:
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2008/hrcontransregs0728.pdf .
Given all the brickbats hurled at HRC by transgender activists for including reality in its strategic thinking, I hope (but hardly expect) that they will give HRC due credit for its advocacy in the D.C. case.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
That should be “amply refuted,” not “emply refuted.”
posted by Bobby on
Why can’t transgender people simply start their own movement? Why must every gay issue must be tied up to a gender issue?
Sexual orientation and transexuality are two different things.
I’m sure many gays within our community feel there’s nothing normal about changing your gender. And while most gays have no problem with people doing as they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt others, I doubt most gays want gay rights associated with transgender rights.
In fact, there’s a lot of craziness among the transexual movement. You don’t see gays demanding gay bathrooms yet there are transexuals demanding just that. Dude, if you become a man or a woman, that’s your problem. I didn’t choose to be gay, but you did choose to change your gender, so don’t expect no pity from me.
posted by another steve on
I support protections for transgendered people and believe they should be supported in their struggles. But I can’t fathom why they want us to forgo our rights until we can get our rights together. Or why non-activist transgendered people don’t speak up and tell their “leaders” to stop this nonsense. Frankly, I’m now much less sympathetic to them then I have been. If they continue to make blocking ENDA a priority, I’ll have no sympathy for them at all.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I really wish someone would explain to me how “transgender” is gay. Gay is men loving men. Transgender is a woman (in a man’s body) loving men. That’s heterosexuality. I mean, if I remember, heterosexuality is when a woman loves a man. Also, transgenders have the right to marry and gays don’t.
Gay is not my feminine side reaching out to someone else’s masculine side–that’s a myth and stereotype. Gay is men loving men, masculine loving masculine. It is not a blurring of gender in any way.
If the goal of the gay community is to gather unrelated marginalized groups together, then instead of transgender, let’s start with the unborn, the old, and fat. The unborn can be killed, the old can be refused treatment, and everyone thinks that fat is a choice and should be refused access to health insurance. They all have much bigger problems than transgender.
posted by Pat on
I really wish someone would explain to me how “transgender” is gay. Gay is men loving men. Transgender is a woman (in a man’s body) loving men. That’s heterosexuality. I mean, if I remember, heterosexuality is when a woman loves a man. Also, transgenders have the right to marry and gays don’t.
I’ve never read where anybody said that transgender is the same as gay. In fact, most people today do recognize them as different issues, sexual orientation and gender identity. But apparently, you don’t quite have it right either. For example, a person born as a man, but who identifies as a woman, may be attracted to men or women (or both).
I’m not sure of the history of why these groups have traditionally been together. My guess is that part of it is because, in the past, most people did confuse the two. They thought a gay male automatically was someone who wanted to be a woman, which we know that isn’t the case. Also, since the defining of these groups does involve sex/gender, there have been many issues and rights that have pertained to both.
As for transgender, they may not always be allowed to be married. They are restricted to marriage to persons of one gender (in most jurisdictions), depending on whether the governing body recognizes the birth gender or the reassigned gender. So if a state recognizes an MTF transgendered person as a female, she is only allowed to marry a man.
I have no problem being associated with a community that includes transgendered. And I think we should work together for rights that pertain to both groups. However, in order to reach that goal, sometimes we have to work for one of the groups first, and then later get the other.
For example, in NJ, we recently had anti-discrimination employment laws pass for transgendered. It is my view that if we didn’t have the laws for GLB persons first, it would have taken longer for the law to cover all GLBT persons.
If the goal of the gay community is to gather unrelated marginalized groups together, then instead of transgender, let’s start with the unborn, the old, and fat. The unborn can be killed, the old can be refused treatment, and everyone thinks that fat is a choice and should be refused access to health insurance. They all have much bigger problems than transgender.
Perhaps there are other fora that deal with these issues.
posted by Ashpenaz on
The gay unborn can be killed by parents who don’t want a gay child; the gay and old can be refused treatment because they are seen as doubly useless; the gay and fat are marginalized by the gay community for not being attractive enough to bother with.
I think the gay community should start working on behalf of the unborn gay, the old gay, and the fat gay.
posted by Pat on
The gay unborn can be killed by parents who don’t want a gay child; the gay and old can be refused treatment because they are seen as doubly useless; the gay and fat are marginalized by the gay community for not being attractive enough to bother with.
I think the gay community should start working on behalf of the unborn gay, the old gay, and the fat gay.
Okay, this is more relevant to this forum. I refuse to debate abortion (except for maybe the politics of it) on any Internet forum, because, in my view, it’s pointless and unproductive to do so, so I’ll leave it to others who feel differently than me.
As for fat or old gays, I get your point, and that would be worth discussion. When it’s relevant to a thread, I’d be happy to do so.
posted by Richard II on
Transgender is a broad term for many different gender identity issues.
Transvestites are, mostly, straight men who cross-dress for their sexual kinks.
All the ones that I have known do so in private, foreplay, and otherwise dress conventionally
Drag queens are, mostly, gay transvestites.
When a man is trapped in a woman’s body, or a woman is trapped in a man’s body they are transgender and, after a lengthy process, where they have to live as the sex they plan on changing into, may have a sex change operation.
It is this last group that is probably most in need of protection. Gay and straight transvestites, tend, to only cross-dress for very specific occasions; i.e. private forplay or a gala or party or because they lose a bet.
Clearly, transgender civil rights protection would have to come with the stipulation that cross-dressing at the workplace was protected only if it was part of the medical transition and post process.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Is cross-dressing at the workplace really a widespread problem? Is it really likely to become more widespread because of transgender protections? It seems to me that people invent a lot of silly, mostly imaginary scenarios to justify their opposition to legal protections for transgender people. [Note: kindly do not respond to this as if the most recent thing I wrote erases everything else I wrote. There are people hereabouts who habitually overinterpret other people’s comments and turn them into caricatures.]
posted by Ashpenaz on
Do parents have the right to abort an otherwise healthy child because tests have shown he is likely to be born gay or transgender? If you’re not going to fight for the rights of the gay and transgender when they are most vulnerable, why bother to fight for their rights at all?
posted by Craig2 on
New Zealand has had anti-discrimination protections for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals (and heterosexuals) in 1993.
More recently, by legislative sleight of hand, it was agreed that gender was broad enough to include ‘gender identity’ within anti-discrimination laws.
As for marriage, post-op transpeople have been able to marry someone of the opposite sex to their reassigned one since a Fanily Court decision in 1994, and pre-op transpeople can have a civil union with someone of the ‘same’ gender, later transferring to marriage after the transition occurs.
As for same-sex marriage, well, that’s had to wait…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Richard II on
Richard (tiny);
I have know at least two transgender people — one blue collar one professional — who were fired from their job when they started to transition.
Clearly, if you are dressing up in drag as part of your job, or for some costume/frat party its probably less of a problem to your overall socioeconomic status.
It would be interested to look at the States that do cover gender identity and see what issues have come up in terms of the workplace dress code. Now, onto abortion….
Their was — 1990s — a play and film about the prospect of a mother having an abortion to avoid having a gay son, like her brother.
It is still science fiction. The more real life example is when women in certain developing nations abort to avoid having girls.
Pro-life proponents could oppose abortions for such reasons, but given the fact that they tend to have little interst in the human rights of women or gays or transgender people, the argument would seem a bit much. Now on to compartive elections…
One of the things that you have to note about many European representative democracies is that they tend to have
national elections, which are often a bit more compeitive then our own.
In America, 70% of people polled may support the ENDA or the HCPA or lifting the ban on gays in the armed forces or civil unions or legalization the tossing of custerd pies at ex’s, but that has little meaning because we do not have national elections.
Americas elections are also, in general, less competitive then many developed European nations due to our ballot access laws, our debate and ad rules and our redistricting rules.
New Zealand has had anti-discrimination protections for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals (and heterosexuals) in 1993.
More recently, by legislative sleight of hand, it was agreed that gender was broad enough to include ‘gender identity’ within anti-discrimination laws.
As for marriage, post-op transpeople have been able to marry someone of the opposite sex to their reassigned one since a Fanily Court decision in 1994, and pre-op transpeople can have a civil union with someone of the ‘same’ gender, later transferring to marriage after the transition occurs.
As for same-sex marriage, well, that’s had to wait…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Richard II wrote, “I have know at least two transgender people — one blue collar one professional — who were fired from their job when they started to transition.”
I have no doubt that transgenders face workplace discrimination. My point was to question whether cross-dressing (not discrimination based on it) is really a problem. That is, (A) where is the evidence of an explosion of cross-dressing in workplaces, and (B) how is anyone’s productivity affected by whether the clothing of the person in the next cubicle matches their apparent gender? There is a great deal of irrationality directed against transgender people. No, it’s not the same as sexual orientation, which is why there is a separate word for it.
As I shouldn’t need to reiterate, my support for transgender rights does not mean I agree with foolish all-or-nothing legislative strategies or a habit of regarding as an enemy anyone who disagrees with such strategies.
posted by Pat on
I didn’t choose to be gay, but you did choose to change your gender, so don’t expect no pity from me.
Bobby, many people still do believe that being gay is a choice. It’s as if they believe when we are around 13 we say, “Gee, I don’t know if I should be attracted to men or women. Hmmm. I think I’ll choose women.” I also learned that many of these confuse orientation with behavior. I once ran across a site infested with gross homophobes. Now, granted some of those were certifiable idiots, but most appeared to be otherwise intelligent. They wouldn’t believe me when I said that there were married preachers who were anti-gay, yet were caught having sex with men, until I provided three links. But they would only admit that they were bisexual, and couldn’t conceive of the possibility that they were gay and only got married and had children to hide their sexuality.
Anyway, even though we don’t choose to be gay, we do choose how to act on it. Most of us now do so by choosing to have sex and relationships with someone of the same gender. But some choose to be celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex, because of family pressure, or because of some unsubstantiated quotes written by humans 1300, 1900, or 2500 years ago.
I believe it’s very similar regarding sexual identity. I was born a male, and identify as a male. If I woke up tomorrow to discover I had female anatomy, I doubt I would then identify as a female. There are many persons who identify as the opposite gender that they were born as. So just like the gay person who then decides how to act on it, so does the transgender person. Of course, the big difference here is that acting on it is MUCH MORE difficult than a gay person acting on his sexuality. So just as most gay persons who choose to play it straight are miserable (and we see some like Larry Craig who seek sex in toilets), I can imagine that transgendered persons have similar difficulties if they remain they same gender they were born into.
So just as we now know that the following are false:
born as a male = attracted to women
born as a female = attracted to men
I believe the following are also false:
born as a male = identify as a man
born as a female = identify as a woman
I think of my younger brother who has come a long way understanding this stuff. He originally thought I was gay, because a friend “turned” me that way. He also couldn’t understand how I could be gay before I ever had sex, even as he lamely tried to convince me he didn’t know he was straight until he had sex. But he’s figured this out, as well as with transgendered persons. He had a transgendered colleague and had to witness all the crap that she got from some other colleagues who had trouble following a simple NJ state law and company policy (one had to go into therapy, because he couldn’t deal with this colleague). And he relayed the interesting looks they got when they were in one of the anti-GLBT capitals on business.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat, thanks for your comments.
“Many people still do believe that being gay is a choice.”
—Well, I don’t really care about people who feel that way. And I suspect transsexuals also learn to ignore those who disapprove. However, just because I’m discriminated against doesn’t mean I have to embrace everything under the sun. I learned that lesson the hard way after seeing other minorities being quite intolerant themselves.
“There are many persons who identify as the opposite gender that they were born as.”
—True, but why not be a drag queen or a butch woman? Why spend over $20,000 becoming something that most people can’t even understand? Why not learn to accept your God-given gender?
I mean, this may not be a good example, but most of my life all I wanted was to be a blue-eyed blond. So at one point, I bought blue contact lenses, I dyed my hair blond, but in the end, I wasn’t happy, because I knew the change had only been cosmetic.
Maybe transexuality is normal, maybe God loves to play jokes on people, make men that desire to be females and viceversa, but to me, it will still be a gender issue and not a sexual orientation issue.
The irony is that countries like Iran do support transexuality. They would rather allow a man to become a woman and to marry a man than for two men to love each other.
posted by Pat on
—Well, I don’t really care about people who feel that way. And I suspect transsexuals also learn to ignore those who disapprove. However, just because I’m discriminated against doesn’t mean I have to embrace everything under the sun. I learned that lesson the hard way after seeing other minorities being quite intolerant themselves.
I am troubled when people who should know better don’t know (or say they don’t know) whether being gay is a choice, or think it is a choice. And it wouldn’t matter to me, except that some use it as an excuse to discriminate or bash. Otherwise, I wouldn’t really care either. And you’re right that minorities can be just as intolerant.
—True, but why not be a drag queen or a butch woman? Why spend over $20,000 becoming something that most people can’t even understand? Why not learn to accept your God-given gender?
I suppose many transgendered persons do learn to accept their God-given gender. But keep in mind, that’s what gay people were also told about their orientation, i.e., accept that you should only be having sex with persons of the opposite sex. Of course, I didn’t accept that. Yes, I know, the difference is $20,000. Frankly, I don’t know what I would do if I was in that position.
I mean, this may not be a good example, but most of my life all I wanted was to be a blue-eyed blond. So at one point, I bought blue contact lenses, I dyed my hair blond, but in the end, I wasn’t happy, because I knew the change had only been cosmetic.
And I’m guessing if you had to spend a lot of money, etc., to become blond and blue-eyed, you probably wouldn’t have bothered in the first place.
Maybe transexuality is normal, maybe God loves to play jokes on people, make men that desire to be females and viceversa, but to me, it will still be a gender issue and not a sexual orientation issue.
And by the same token, maybe God was joking when he made men attracted to men and women attracted to women. Some things I will never understand. Speaking of which…
The irony is that countries like Iran do support transexuality. They would rather allow a man to become a woman and to marry a man than for two men to love each other.
I probably won’t ever understand the thinking processes of the clowns who end up becoming leaders of countries like Iran. Maybe there is no prohibition of having a gender identity different than one’s Allah-given gender or changing one’s gender, in the Koran. Still, I don’t get the obsession that people have regarding homosexuality and gay persons.
posted by avee on
Commenters suggest that an ENDA+transgender bill would (or could) avoid the issue of cross-dressing at work. But the proposed transgender provision in the bill introduced in April 2007, which would have prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of an individual’s "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" defined the later as follows: GENDER IDENTITY- The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
Prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of this definition would seem to open the door to all manner of frivilous suits (and don’t think they wouldn’t be brought!). Complete text of the April 2007 version of ENDA is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015.IH:
posted by Richard II on
Well, the above mention
proposed ‘inclusive’ ENDA sounds somewhat similar to the MN Human Rights Act of 1993.
The State law protects sexual orientation and gender identity and I do not recall hearing about a wave of frivious lawsuits.
posted by Richard II on
I can totally understand the need to be pragmatic when it comes to politics. If one version of ENDA will pass and the other one will not, you need to do what can be done today, today and do what can be done tomorrow, tomorrow.
Yet, the reason I was sketical of the willingess of some GLB people to divorce the two bills, was because almost nothing was being said or planned, that I could see, to make it possible for such a ‘inclusive’ bill to be passed in the future.
In other words, we are telling transgender people to be polite, patient and wait, but are not really going to tell them for how long and really do not care.
I have made some suggestions, invest in a national transgender education speaker group, encourage transgender people to run for office….
posted by Richard on
Actually, many post-op trasngendered individuals have faced legal problems in getting legally married to (what are now) a person of the opposite sex.
Some courts have said that despite the sex change itself, legally the person is still the sex they were born with. Much of this gets down to the difficulty in formally changing legal documents so that the law respects the post-op.
posted by jared on
How about Thomas Beatie? As in:
Married ‘man’ claims to be five months pregnant
He is now legally a man married to a woman in the eyes of federal law. Wonder if he thinks ENDA should be put on hold until trans are included?
posted by Richard II on
It is not entirely clear if they are really married under federal law or not.
Their may be some legal challenges into the matter with the increased publicity. It all depends on the conflicting legal principles regarding sex change operations.
If it goes before a judge or jury it will all depend on wheather or not his sex is determined to be what he was born with, or what he came — which in itself is complicated because he chose finish the sex change operation.
Most people who go through the operation, do so entirely. It is very rare for a woman to go through the operation to become a man, but keep her female reproductive organs.