What's The "T" on LGBT Rights?
By Keith Boykin, in sexuality
Monday, October 15 2007, 11:20AM
For the past few weeks, there has been a war waging in the LGBT community about just what those initials really mean. As Congress has taken up the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, factions on both sides have dug in their heels over the question of including "gender identity" in the proposed legislation.
Some, like Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly gay member of Congress, believe that ENDA will not pass if gender identity is included in the bill. But others, including virtually all of the mainline LGBT groups, oppose the bill because it would not protect the transgender community, leaving them to fend for themselves in separate future legislation that has no chance of passing. All of this leads to a question: Exactly what is the LGBT community all about?
A Conflict In The Community
It's important to state at the outset that I think everybody is doing exactly what they should be doing here. Barney Frank's job is different from the job of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and they are each performing their jobs as I would expect them to do so. But therein lies the conflict.
As a member of Congress, Frank's goal is to pass legislation, and that often means compromise. In order to work with 434 other legislators, he must make concessions from time to time to get just a little bit of what he wants. He has crunched the numbers and he's determined that ENDA has no chance of passing the House if gender identity is included, so Frank figures a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. From his vantage point, if you can pass a bill that would finally protect gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans from discrimination, why not do it, even if you can't include the transgender population yet?
But that's not the goal of the LGBT movement. The LGBT groups have a notably different agenda. From their vantage point, all of us are stronger if we stick together. If you pass ENDA for the LGB part of the community, Congress may never come back and deal with the "T." And if Congress doesn't have the votes to pass ENDA with "T" included, then what makes anyone think they will ever have the votes if "T" is forced to fend for itself? Moreover, since President Bush isn't likely to sign this legislation anyway, why exclude a part of your community in a push for a "symbolic bill"?
Frank calls this approach "ideological purity" and warns that it would backfire on the left. "To win this vote, we need to get the votes of people who beat Republican incumbents last year in districts that voted for George Bush, and we're going to yell at them because they only vote to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and are not yet ready to include transgender?" He calls for a two-bill strategy that would allow lawmakers to vote for ENDA with trans protection in one or without trans protection in the other.
But Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the only other openly gay member of Congress, sees it differently. "I am under no illusions about the challenges of achieving our goal. But, the quest for advancement of civil rights in our nation has never been easy. It is precisely because of the discrimination these groups experience that this legislation is needed," she said in a statement released Friday.
The Needs of the Many Versus the Needs of the Few
After listening to the arguments on all sides, I still think this is a very difficult issue. In fact, the debate is similar to the debate on marriage versus civil unions. There are those who feel that civil unions are "separate and unequal" and should never be accepted and others who feel that civil unions are a first step in the right direction toward full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
But is it possible to believe in both? Is it possible, for example, to think that marriage is the ultimate goal but to support civil unions on the way to getting there? And similarly, is it possible to believe that LGBT inclusion is the ultimate goal but LGB inclusion is the first step to getting there? Those questions raise the issue of principled compromise, and challenge us to determine when, if ever, it is acceptable to leave any group behind on the way toward progress.
As an African American, I am constantly reminded of the possibility of being left behind by the gay movement. If some leaders in the mainstream LGBT community had their way, the concerns of people of color might never be addressed. All of which of course leads some gays and lesbians of color to question the movement's commitment to them. As Barbara Smith once asked in a 1993 essay in The Nation: "Does the gay and lesbian movement want to create a just society for everyone? Or does it only want to eradicate the last little glitch that makes life difficult for privileged (white male) queers?"
Throughout the debate, the discussion has been framed as a conflict between the needs of the many (LGB) versus the needs of the few (T). But what we sometimes fail to realize is that if the goal is justice, then the needs of the few are also the needs of the many. As Dr. King said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Protecting minorities from discrimination not only benefits those minorities; it also benefits the rest of society.
And so we are faced with a critical choice.
It is a choice that reminds me of a short story by Ursula K. LeGuin, which I pulled out just last week for my trip to Oregon, where the author lives. In The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, LeGuin describes a Utopian world where everyone is well fed and well treated, the streets are clean, the people are happy, and children play safely in the parks. But there is a catch. The happiness of everyone else in the community is dependent on the misery of one child.
Most of the residents accept the terrible reality that enables their happiness, but some of them do not and choose to leave. "The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness," LeGuin writes. "I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas."
Comments conceal
Kenneth Winfrey
October 15 2007, 12:12PM
I agree that an "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I also understand that the majority of Americans are not as prepared to accept the transgender community as they are when it comes to "L, G and B."
In the minds of most people, "LG and B" represent what people DO (i.e., be intimate with members of the same gender). On the other hand, transgederism respresents what people ARE (i.e., male or female--two constructs on which one's roles, expectations and identification are based upon by others).
I admit that even I have difficulty getting past the obvious maleness of some women who have transitioned, as well as the femaleness of some men who have transitioned. I am mature enough to work through it, and it is work that I am willing to do.
Ultimately, I believe that we all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. No one human being can truly be free until we are all free. Bayard Rustin said, ""Freedom is one thing. You have it all or you are not free."
Anonymous
October 15 2007, 12:16PM
You say that Rep. Frank's motives are about political compromise. However, you neglect to point out the biased comments that the congressman has made about transgendered people, including ignorant laments about people not feeling comfortable using the bathroom or showering with transgenders. It is not all about his politicking.
It is also about Rep. Frank's biases and his misunderstanding of the role that gender identity plays in sexual orientation. There is a well-researched and deeply debated link between gender and sexuality that is continually distorted in this political debate.
You see, the terms "gender identity" are in fact not as problematic as naysayers against an inclusive ENDA say. "Gender identity" actually would give protection to the following:
- Effeminate or masculine homosexuals.
- Transgenders.
- Intersexed individuals.
This is not a trans-only debate. It's about an honest view of sexual difference which encompasses a range of gender identities.
Protect everyone. Simple as that.
Mason
October 15 2007, 2:16PM
I feel that when LGB people choose to support the ENDA without gender identity being included it's being as ignorant towards gender as we see "straight" people being with sexual orientation. I completely agree that the gender piece is way more than a trans concern. This seems to be some sort of passing contest; the more you can fit in with mainstream America (by following gender norms) the more rights you get. Not all of us can fit in that easily whether its the natural effeminateness of a bio-male or a very masculine bio-female, a post-op transexual, or a woman identified intersexed person with a beard. What are we supposed to do? The LGBTQIA community should know this divide and conquer stuff already. The expression of gender and sexual orientation is so close it's ridiculous that this is actually an argument. What if Civil Rights laws would only apply to people who could pass a paper bag test? Yes, it's that ridiculous.
Stuffed Animal
October 15 2007, 2:33PM
People don't seem to know what the word transgender means. Look it up in the dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, it means "having personal characteristics that transcend traditional gender boundaries and corresponding sexual norms." Guess what? That definition applies to all LGBT folk, not just transpersons. It means that, to varying degrees, we're all people of intermediate gender identity. Cutting to the chase, then, if gender identity isn't protected, same-gender sexual expression isn't protected, either. There's a fundamental connection there!
Barney Frank may be a Gay man, but he's a politician above all, and a very cynical one at that. The position he's taken shows him to be utterly lacking in compassion and principles. I'm not surprised. Years ago, when I appealed to him for help with a discrimination problem at my Federal workplace, his response to me couldn't have been colder. I've never been treated as rudely as I was by his office staff.
madprofessah![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
October 15 2007, 2:59PM
I agree with Keith that I find it hard to accept the "ENDA question" as whether to accept a LGB-only ENDA now and try for a LGBT bill later or to oppose anything but a fully-inclusive LGBT ENDA. I think that both measures, HR 2015 (original LGBT ENDA) and HR 3685 (LGB only version) should receive a full vote in the US House.
Speaker Pelosi has only agreed to move HR 2015 when there are enough votes to guarantee its passage in the House. Barney Frank claims there are enough votes to pass HR 3685 so that LGB-only bill will probably be voted on and pass the House. Over 300 LGBT groups have signed on to a letter asking LGBT individuals to contact their Congressperson to tell them to vote NO on HR 3685, mainly because it is not HR 2015. I can't go along with telling people not to vote for a gay rights bill, however deficient it may be, although I prefer that HR 2015 pass.
Regardless of what passes the House, neither bill will become law in 2007 or 2008 while George W. Bush is President.
Karmatic
October 15 2007, 5:36PM
I believe Barney Frank has it right on this issue...
There will always be purists out there for just about every issue
known to man..And those same purists will never be satisfied with anything...
If this bill gets passage it will be monumental for millions of people...
The transgendered will live on to fight another day...In the meantime, Gays and Lesbians need the equal protection this law will provide....Some people should leave that altruistic
bullshit at home and try to think more reasonably...
We need this Law...
jazzi
October 15 2007, 7:55PM
Anonymous said it best: "Protect everyone. Simple as that". Should be a no brainer.
Mr. Frank says let this bill pass now & then revisit equal protection for transgendered people later. Is he going to lead the charge? If I were transgendered, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Transgendered people are the red headed bastards of the gay community. It's easy to dimiss their need for equal protection as less imminent than the larger community. It's at times like this that people show their true colors, just how elists we really are.
What we really need is a law that protects all of us & leaves no one out in the cold to fend for themselves. No one should be left out. Again, a no brainer.
Andy
October 15 2007, 8:57PM
Since I'll admit I have no idea of what a transgendered person is and I'm a gay man, how would the general public know either, other than what it says in Websters or what they see on Jerry Springer, I feel as though this is a fight for a later time. I'll go along with Karmatic, and, as far as what Nancy Pelosi says, that carries little to nothing, Frank probally has the pulse of the Congress better than she does.
But, the cynic in me says that even it passes with either version, it won't do anything, just like the hate crime laws on some books that are seldom enforced.
James Synegal
October 15 2007, 9:08PM
I think that it is high time that someone had the balls to rally to include transgendered persons in the Anti-Discrimination Act. We need to have a workplace that is free of discrimination of any type, not just protection for persons based on race, national origin, sex, color, or age, or other prohibited factors. I also am glad that Keith is who he is he is a fine, talented, intelligent, and classy man. He is my idol, I not only like him, but I respect him greatly and dont even know him. It is sad that we live in a society that I feel is quite close-minded and think that only success belongs to a certain group or class of individuals. However, if we continue to fight they will realize the error of their nasty ways. Also, it really disturbs me to know that in about thirty -five of the United States one can be legally fired or denied employment simply because of their sexual orientation, or their perceived sexual orientation. This is absolutely outrageous. But it will change and needs to and fast.
Byron
October 15 2007, 10:06PM
Trans people deserve equal protection under the law like everyone else. They also need their own organizations. Whether we belong to a religious, sexual, or racial minority group, we are all discriminated against. These experiences have similarities but they are not exactly the same. I am a gay man. I have never questioned my gender. I do not fully understand or relate to that particular struggle. I respect it. Like it or not, people tend to champion their own causes more fervently than they do others. Big umbrella groups are nice in an "up with people" way but logrolling large contingents usually means that the smaller groups feel their needs aren't being addressed. Trans people as part of LGBT are a minority of a minority, which means they will always feel that their issues/goals are an afterthought. They need their own orgs pushing their cause because they may always be last in LGBT.
'dre
October 15 2007, 10:41PM
I didn't think that the trans folks thought of themselves as "gay" to begin with, so, why would they be included in this bill? Transgendered, transsexuals,transvestites, just how is the public at large supposed to be able to tell these apart? This is a subset within the gl community that many need to be educated on, myself included.
Steve
October 16 2007, 12:21AM
As much as it would gall me to have to do so, Frank is right - you take the win where you can get it, and keep working for equality for everyone. Sometimes you only prove your point by demonstrating it. If passing the bill would allow us to demonstrate how right it is to treat everyone equally, it will be easier to win the battle for the rest.
I think our country is pathetic for making anyone fight for equal rights. But in the fight, we have to remember it's a war, and wars are won battle by battle.
Jerry
October 16 2007, 1:03AM
I don't get why transgender is even attached to gay/lesbin/bisexual people, as someone else said a lot of them don't consider themself gay just that they were born the wrong gender. It's a completely different issue IMO. I'm not saying transgender people are wrong or anything, if they feel they should be someone else then all the power to them but I wish someone could explain clearly why it's considered by some to be even close to the same thing as gay or bi.
Liquid Fonts
October 16 2007, 3:03AM
My problem is the false perception out there that Gays really want to BE women and lesbians want to BE men. On any given day I encounter str8's, gays, lesbians, males and females of all backgrounds acting in "Transgendered" ways. Tough Female Police officers, the nurturing Father Str8 men getting their hair colored and purchasing Men's facial products, but I still see many gay men buffing up at the gym and maintain a very masculine identity, lesbians applying lipsticks and steppin out in Highest heels.. so I don't understand why the Gay and Lesbian community gets the full bill when this is a societal issue. If you haven't noticed, we've been living in a Transgendered society for quiet a while(fem movement) but society is less likely to identity Rachel Ray as Transgendered even with her husky rough raspy gutteral voice and overtly masculine posturing because she is not a LESBIAN.
Steve
October 16 2007, 10:18AM
It's about being a minority on the basis of your sexual identity. There is indeed common ground, just not where you're looking for it. The trans community needs all the support it can get, and I feel a responsibility toward that. But let's win this matter first. Then we can take it to the next level.
There is no reason for ANY group in our country to be consigned to second class status. The ability of those in power to so easily dismiss the rights of others troubles me deeply. Our societal values suck.
Derrick from Philly
October 16 2007, 11:04AM
Most black folks I've come across over these last 49 years don't make a big distinction between a drag queen and a gay man. We're all "faggots" to them. Even if you are a "traditional masculine" homosexual man, let your co-workers, neighbors, fraternity brothers, etc. find out that you are gay--to many of them you become a "faggot". As Anonymous pointed out there are gay folks who don't consider themselves transgendered but yet they are feminine men and masculine women.
Terms like "gay" or "in the life" were necessary for just this very reason. Some of us are just homosexual--we have same sex desires, but in every other way we're like any other man or woman--nothing noticeably different. A great many of us have traits, mannerisms, speech sound which some consider stereotypically gay. Hell, is ENDA only going to apply to masculine men and feminine women? Why not, Congressman Frank? That's what you want, isn't it, you fat ugly fa...
Oh, I'm startin' to cuss and get unnecessarily ugly. Sorry
Ostend Street
October 16 2007, 12:08PM
"Will the real transgendered, transexual, transvestite people please stand up!" This is starting to sound like what white folks think blalck folks want or what rich folk think poor folk want........... Let the folk with the real issue tell us what they want and the rest of us (if we want)can be their support in whatever way we can.
johnny t malice
October 16 2007, 2:25PM
Politics is where idealism gets compromised by pragmatism. If I sincerely thought that anti-discrimination laws for gay & lesbian folks would get passed & implemented providing that transsexuals were not included on the ticket, then I would say it's a compromise, and regrettable, but still a step in the right direction. Just as the civil rights & Black Power movements, though themselve at times homophobic, widened the circle of equality in a way that empowered gay & lesbian people to press for equal rights in a way they would not have done before, so having in place a law that forbids discrimination against gay men & lesbians should create a political & social climate that points up the injustice of permitting discrimination against transsexuals. If it were to be illegal to fire a flaming cissy or butch bulldagger on the grounds one would be firing them because they were gay/lesbian then that in & of itself would start to shade into protection for the gender-nonconforming.
J
October 16 2007, 4:31PM
ENDA is important and all, but I find it odd that many black bloggers are pretty much silent about the acquittal of the guards that beat the stuffing out of a limp, skinny black teen. These same people were screaming and yelling over the Jena 6, and I won't even get into my feelings on that matter.
We can't really address the needs of transgender people. How do we legislate something no one, not even transpeople, can get their head around? Why are we even worried about black transpeople when "straight" black lives aren't even valued?
ENDA wouldn't even be for black SGLs anyway. Sure some might be saved, but at the end of the day white is white. Notice how their organizations are silent when black SGLs are fired, attacked, harrassed, or murdered. When was the last time a hate crime law got justice for a black SGL or a black breeder? ENDA wouldn't be much different.
elg
October 16 2007, 6:02PM
Not to be "politically incorrect" but over the years I've always heard transgendered people say that they were not gay or lesbian, that they were " a woman trapped in a man's body" (or a man trapped in a woman's body). Since so many of them were (and I assume still are) so adamant that they were not gay or lesbian, how did they get attached to the gay/lesbian movement anyway? Just asking.
Risa Bear
October 16 2007, 8:43PM
An inclusive ENDA protects at least four categories of people: intersexed, trans, gay/bi, and straight.
Trans and intersexed people are notable for publicly transgressed gender taboos, for which they are targeted.
Gay or bi people are sometimes noted for transgressed gender taboos, for which they are then targeted. As Susan Stryker has pointed out, a man putting up a picture of his husband in a cubicle is not committing forbidden sex, he's crossing gender lines.
And straight-oriented, straight-identified people are occasionally noted for transgressed gender taboos, for which they are then targeted. As when a cisgendered woman recently was yanked out of a restroom in my town for going to the women's room.
ENDA-Lite protects none of the above from the things which actually tend to attract discrimination.
Most gay people can hide from all this. Transpeople, unless they have given up everything, wiped out all documentation and moved, and have an absolutely 'convincing' presentation, cannot.
YS
October 16 2007, 10:55PM
hey guys. i have a question. first, i have to tell you that it is an honest question and i am really interested in answers. it is not meant to accuse anyone of anything or insult anyone. i am a foreigner, living for 2 years in Baltimore. just FYI.
i thought gay rights organizations were supposed to fight homophobia and promote equal rights for gay people. period. how is it possible to forget black people for example? i mean technically. are there some special needs that black gays have that white gays do not have? and vice versa? i am extremely puzzled by this.
now i read Keith saying "As an African American, I am constantly reminded of the possibility of being left behind by the gay movement." i don't get how that is achievable, to leave someone behind.
can you explain or give me an example of some action of say HRC or GLAAD that could illustrate this?
thanks!
nhlanhla - S. Africa
October 17 2007, 9:57AM
The only reason why in S. Africa there's legal provision for protection of LGBTIQ is because, the likes of Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu supported the inclusion of 'sexual orientation' in the black struggle in those few years prior to 1994 when finalising the national constitution.
There - is some worthy lesson for the not so selfless, like me and some.
Nathan James
October 17 2007, 10:27AM
The operative word in this whole issue is "non-conforming". Whenever people do not meekly conform with the white-male-based societal norm, they are made to suffer. Social sanctions range from ridicule to outright criminalization of sexual identity expression. For the LGBT community to be forced to fight for its identity as human beings deserving of "equality" (as Steve above points out)is disgusting. What real threat is posed by the LGBTs among us, that Congress is loath to grant them equal protection under the laws, as our Constitution already requires?
It's the threat of "non-conformity". Just like when I was back in school as a kid, constantly setting off the "independent thinking" alarm, and getting hauled off to the principal's office for another lesson in "conformity"...
J
October 17 2007, 11:48AM
I think there are miles between non-conformists and transgendered people.
It's ignorant to say that because someone doesn't fit the gender mold perfectly they're mildly trans. That's similar to the everyone's bi nonsense.
NAMBLA members think they're a part of the gay community and they're some misunderstood, oppressed group that will one day be mainstream. There are so many minorities that want to call themselves black or compare their experience to ours. That people of color tag must have been dreamed up by a NAMBLA member. All of that ridiculous grouping undermines progress.
Nathan James
October 17 2007, 12:17PM
J, I respectfully beg to differ with you. As an interracial person, I know from firsthand experience that my skin is dark enough, when white people look at me, they do NOT see themselves. I am, in fact, a "person of color", and that description is not a label of convenience. Also, transgendered people most certainly are non-conformists, because they refuse to express the gender other people insist upon for them.
As for NAMBLA members, (who reinforce the myth that gays are pedophiles, by their continued assertions of gayness), these people's actions are harmful to society. The LGBT community merely makes "mainstream" society uneasy because they don't conform to an arbitrary "norm". No harm comes to anyone when gays and lesbians, as adults, enjoy safe and sane intimacy with one another. NAMBLA cannot now, or ever, make that claim about its members' activities.
J
October 17 2007, 3:04PM
Nate,
My statement wasn't so much a response to your comment, but more so one for those that try to paint every living person as trans.
"People of color" is a hustle.
Transpeople insist they are in fact another gender so I fail to see how they are non-conformists. These are individuals that completely believe in the biology of their identity, that something went wrong. How is that the same as a woman who rocks a lo lo or a male nurse?
Derrick from Philly
October 17 2007, 3:46PM
There are many transfolk who consider themselves gay. There are some transsexuals who go through the whole psycho/surgical reassignment and still return to the gay world--rather than trying to enter the straight world. I remember Pepper Lebeija in Paris Is Burning saying, "I have never been a woman. I can say what it means to be a man who emulates a woman, but I can never say what it feels like to be a woman...I never wanted the sex change."
And there are so many gay women who because of dress and mannerisms could easily be categorized as transgendered.
Those who believe you can separate these two elements of the gay world are unrealistic. I often wonder whether homosexual men who have no contact with transfolk are those that came into "the Life" late--like in their twenties. Those of us who were "in the life" as children couldn't help but come in contact with transgendered people because at age 8 or 9 we weren't that different from them.
cmoney
October 17 2007, 9:18PM
I agree with Barney Frank. Civil rights for all has rarely come about in one fell swoop. The struggle for Black civil rights took oveer 100 years from the end of slavery. We did not go from slavery to full citizenship overnight (it might have happened had Reconstruction been fully supported). The gay community has a habit of shooting itself in the foot by pushing too fast and too hard and then ending up with nothing. The gay marriage debate just about insured the election of George Bush in 2000 and again in 2004 (Happy now?). It would have been smarter to chill with that push until AFTER a gay friendly democrat had been elected. But noo! So here we are with numerous state laws BANNING gay marriage. That was as major setback to the movement. Maybe the LGBT Community might learn from their political mistakes, but I'm not holding my breath. Pass SOME civil rights protection now and then campaign in the courts and politically to protect the trannys too.
nhlanhla - S. Africa
October 18 2007, 2:48AM
As long as the LGBT movement and people continue to see its/their own struggles as seperate or different from that of the main gender struggle (incl. women struggle) and the struggle that seeks to redefine PATRIACHY, the movement will never get far enough.
The problems with homosexuality (and feminism) as seen by the status quo are that they challenge partriachy. White or black straight men do not hate homosexuals for sleeping with same gender, but because their acts are simply anti-patriachy which is seen to work well for ensuring a future off-spring. The fear is animalistic. Hence, without challenging that setting as a matter of priority, a fight for gay marriage, for e.g., is insightless and short sighted. Hence, the trans and gay and women causes are one thing. And we have to see it that way for lasting gains. It's not about gays, black or white.
Jerry
October 18 2007, 10:24AM
cmoney you make a great point and it echoes things I myself have been saying for quite a while.
Derrick from Philly
October 18 2007, 10:26AM
Many transgendered folk do start off calling themselves "gay"--as children/teenagers. It was only after many of them were rejected SOCIALLY by gay men that many of them created a separate place for themselves. Transsexuals (or Trannys as y'all keep calling them) are not the only folks who fall under the category of transgendered. Anyone who is NOTICEABLY behaving/looking/walking/HAVING SEX like the opposite sex can be transgendered and GAY at the same time.
Y'all should read "Honey, Honey, Miss Thang" by Dr. Leon Pettiway of Indiana Uni. He let 6 Philly drag queens tell their own life stories. All of them called themselves gay--even the one who wanted an actual sex change.
Y'all aint gonna' decide who's gay and who's not--y'all don't have the authority.
nhlanhla: I appreciate your comments. You remind me of the poster, "Laura". She used to make similar brave statements here on Keith's site when I first discovered it 4 years ago. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
Justin
October 18 2007, 3:29PM
I'm not surprise by the action of Barney Frank. At least with the Log Cabin homocons you get what you expect. With friends like these who needs enimies.
Mark
October 18 2007, 3:38PM
I can see both sides of the arguement. While I believe that saying injustice to some is injustice to all, I do see how Rep. Barney Frank can justify allowing the bill to pass with just the LGB. If you think about it a transgender can fit into that equation. Maybe not so easily emotionally, but surely a Transgendered male to female can fall into the "woman" category (since majority of the ones I have met will kick your ass if you call them "man"), or vice-verse. Even if not fully transgendered, they can fall into the "gay" populace. Just my opinion.
MLee
October 18 2007, 6:33PM
Derrick from Philly, keep on educating me. Before I knew anything about transsexuals, I thought transsexuals, effeminate gays and drag queens were basically the same. They were all gay but striking back at society at different levels for being socially rejected. Later, from reading a white weekly gay home newspaper, I came to believe transsexuals were actually women in men’s bodies and men in women’s bodies. Derrick, your explanation makes more sense to me. Your past posts have caused me to respect effeminate men, especially you.
nhlanhla -S. Africa
October 19 2007, 3:15AM
D. Phil: the love goes bothways. In its pure form, which I have seen, it is non-selfserving. When I first accepted I was gay, it was about my immediate needs. I feared being associated with effeminate boys, in fact I saw red at the thought of that association. So, even though I may understand where most of us (posts) come from, a sad place, I don't accept it anymore.
I think the liberals in here should think of the US's foreign policies, as analogy, of picking alliances based on short term conviniences (like IRAQ in the 80s), the chickens do come back to roast sooner or later. The 'T' is the core in the LGBTQI even when it appears inconvinient at times.
Derrick from PHilly
October 19 2007, 1:45PM
Thanks MLee: Maybe I'm good for something after all.
You know, a lot of gay guys who are very fem when we're in our teens/twenties & maybe thirties tend to mellow out as when we get older. When that happens you become "acceptable" to more "mainstream" gay men. Problem is the former fem has got to listen to all this anti-fem bullshit coming out the mouths of "normal-acting" gay men. Whenever my "mainstream" gay friends would put on "Noah's Arc" it was excruciating--I felt like doing a Columbine on them bitches, I mean, guys. But atleast I've learned from being in "both worlds".
As for my old "girlfriends" from the 70s(who survived the epidemic), well, some stayed in drag(with the help of female hormones), others have gone my route (toned it down), and a few are downright on the "dl". You know what's funny: when it comes to anal sex, the ones on the "dl" are bottoms, and the drag queens are versatile tops. But we're all gay.
J
October 19 2007, 4:42PM
It really is sad that some gay men feel the need to bash and distance themselves from "fem" men, but fem men need to understand where that's coming from. They want so bad to be one of the boys and really believe doing that gets them in the club when really to a phobe, gay is gay. They're only fooling themselves, but fem dudes need to stop stressing over those assclowns and cut them out of the life. I know it makes them feel good to bed some loud anti-fem 50 Cent type, but you're only making it worse. Cut them off and pretty soon they'll get tired of the fake butch, roided up one-dimensional dudes and being one of them. These ignorant tools exist among lesbians too, but people actually try to act like there's nothing wrong with them. Meanwhile, they're more harmful to women than cancer, Islam, and the absence of affirmative action combined.
Monica Roberts
October 23 2007, 1:26PM
I'm a proud African-American who happens to be transgender as well.
I have fought along with other transgender people for almost ten years to have the Constitution's 'We the People' include transpeople as well.
The first point I need to make is that there are are transpeople who ARE gay or lesbian.
Secondly, the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion that kicked off the modern gay rights movement was started by Latina and African-American transwomen while Mattachine gays like Barney Frank were cowering in their closets.
What do transpeople want? The same things you GLB peeps do. I want to be able to get any job I have the qualifications for as a college educated transperson WITHOUT being denied it, harassed or terminated from it because I or a gay or lesbian person doesn't fit the narrow binary definition of how a man or woman is supposed to look, act, walk or talk.
MLee
October 23 2007, 5:10PM
Derrick from Philly, thanks again. I knew I could count on you for a “straight” answer!!!
Labi Siffre
October 29 2007, 7:54AM
And there, Kenneth Winfrey (October 15 2007), in your second paragraph, lie important questions the global heterosexual community consistently and conveniently fail to ask themselves.
Is heterosexuality what you are - or what you do?
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
If you didn’t choose, why insist that those who do not share your sexuality have chosen theirs?
As a gay black man who recognised his sexuality at aged four (before learning the dictionary definitions of either sexuality or sex) but did not realise he was black until the age of seven (when the name calling began) it occurred to me, about thirty-five years ago, that your sexuality is what you are - while your colour (ethnicity) is what other people tell you you are (especially when humans are so genetically similar to each other as to make the idea of “race” a nonsense, a false, human construct rather than a construct of nature, there being only one human race).
As for transgender people, the operative word (pun intended) is "people".
MLee
October 29 2007, 5:26PM
Labi Siffre, I believe I have you beat by a year in recognizing my sexuality at the age of three, also before learning the dictionary definitions of either sexuality or sex. When I was 3 and 4 years old, I had a choice of sleeping with my aunt who was 10 years older or my uncle who was 8 years older. I always preferred my uncle, even after a fight during the day. When I was 4, 5 and 6, I would hop onto the laps of teenage boys in a minute. The only woman’s lap I would sit on was my mother. I could give additional examples for each year up until I was 12, when my father gave me a paperback book to read on the “Sexual Behavior of Men.” When I got to the chapter “Deviant Behavior”, I said to myself “OOPS”.
kris in atlanta
November 4 2007, 4:15AM
Discrimination is alive and well in America. How ironic that George Bush fights tooth and nail for the privilege of illegal aliens to blatantly thumb their noses at our laws and come over here en masse with no actual fear or concern of punishment, while he (Bush) at the same time fights just as hard to prevent Americans-all Americans-from truly enjoying real civil liberty, specifically LGBT. However, that said, we do not need to be delusional regarding the matter at hand. The T is the T because of a very real aspect: appearance. Appearing G or L or B is vastly different than appearing T,it always has been, and perhaps always will be, in many peoples' eyes and that's a fact. Truth be told, T should be included. But are we willing to lose the whole cart for just one apple? There are still rivers to cross. Let's win one now, and regroup for the larger future fight.
Monica Roberts
November 18 2007, 1:35AM
Incremental progress leads to EXPONENTIAL increases of discrimination, bigotry and violence hurled at the people left behind.
As President John F. Kennedy said in a June 1963 speech on civil rights,"When we give rights to others, we expand rights for ourselves."
Comment Preview