For as much progress our society makes in understanding gender identity disorder( not my term, its the medical profession's) we, as a culture, really take some stupid back pedaling moves.
Take for instance this article from The Vital Voice in St Louis. It's yet another government body discriminating based on "moral" grounds.
I don't want to hear any knee jerk "Moral Majority" "Religious Right" cracks. No , "Bush went down to Georgia and made them do that" lines either. A person insults their own intelligence in making such statements.
Live and Let Live.
Hold yourself to account and forgive others as they find their way.
Immoral?
By who's standards? Over 50% of the work force could be fired for premarital sex based on "moral" codes.
Inappropriate?
Possibly. It depends on the way a person HANDLES their transition.
Yet that's not the issue. Vandy Beth Glenn wasn't fired for just showing up to work one day as Vandy, wear something out of Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Doesn't she have the right to treat her disorder? (REMEMBER its the medical profession's term). If a person had a cleft palette and required a procedure to correct an inconsistency, should they be fired?
Any medical or psychological condition should receive treatment if that treatment will abate or suppress the condition.
Here's what McDoc has to say (WebMD)
How Is Gender Identity Disorder Treated?
Individual and family counseling usually is recommended to treat children with gender identity disorder. Counseling focuses on treating the associated problems of depression and anxiety and on improving self-esteem. Therapy also aims at helping the individual function as well as possible within his or her biological gender.
Counseling is recommended for adults, as is involvement in a support group. Some transsexual adults request hormone and surgical treatments to suppress their biological sex characteristics and to achieve those of the opposite sex. The surgical alteration of a person's sex is called gender reassignment surgery (sometimes referred to as a "sex change" operation). Because this surgery is major and irreversible, candidates for surgery must undergo an extensive evaluation and transition period.
What Are the Complications of Gender Identity Disorder
If not addressed, the disorder can cause a poor self-image, social isolation, and emotional distress. Untreated, the disorder can also cause severe depression and anxiety, and can interfere with an individual's ability to function, leading to problems in school or work, or with developing relationships.
So an individual, receiving treatment for a condition, is terminated from their job for seeking and following their health care provider's prescription?
Morality supposes we have a choice in our actions. And while I have a choice to drink myself to death over depression, its actual immoral to do so.
Is it immoral to take Viagra so that sex with your wife is as fulfilling as with your mistress? Or better yet, your femme boy you've got stashed on the side.......
Oh wait, you have a "medical" condition. You're addicted to sex.
Showing posts with label ENDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ENDA. Show all posts
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Susan Stanton, the Hate Bandwagon and a little ol' fashion B.O.D.
I was recently made aware of an article from the St Petersburg Times written by Lane DeGregory. This article, addressing the preceding year in the life of Susan Stanton, the City of Largo FL's former city manager. Some will remember Ms Stanton being very publicly outed as transgendered and subsquently dismissed.
Well, this is where the firestorm took off. Fueled from the residual anger over the ENDA debacle, and I suspect a fair amount of fustration with the HRC, many transfolk proceded to attack Susan Stanton's position, as described by this article. What I found most troubling was not the instant call to express this disapproval. It was the lack of respect shown towards her by not hearing her side, in her own words.
Ms Stanton finally did reply to this article on her personal webpages by writing this statement.
I'm willing, after reading both items, to give the benefit of the doubt to Susan Stanton. In my opinion, the issue at hand is NOT what Susan thinks, it's her candid explanation of what she believes the general public's and most politican's views are.
That belief is that the population at large and many politicans see transgender Americans as "men in dresses".
In specific she wrote
"Contrary to the St. Petersburg Times article, I do not see members of the transgender community as “men wearing dresses.” However, I do feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding by the general public that being transgender is simply a matter of men wanting to “dress up as women.” Most people do not understand the medical nature of being a transgender and therefore cannot understand the need or justification for non-discrimination protection in employment and housing."
The St Petersburg times article stated this, to which she was addressing.
"Susan has met hundreds of other people like her. She was among the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people lobbying for a law that would make it illegal for others to discriminate against them.
But Susan has said all along that she's not like other transgender people. She feels uncomfortable even looking at some, "like I'm seeing a bunch of men in dresses."
Eventually, she decided it was too early for transgender people to be federally protected. People need more time, more education, she says. "The transgender groups boo me, now, when I speak. Isn't that ironic?
"But I don't blame the human rights groups from separating the transgender people from the protected groups. Most Americans aren't ready for us yet," Susan says. Transgender people need to be able to prove they're still viable workers -- especially in the mainstream.
"The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies' rooms will be invaded by guys in drag," Susan says, "instead of someone like me."
Is she off base with her perception? She does have the experience of a very public firing, lobbying of Congress for the passage of ENDA and has been a fairly active speaker in the last 12 months. More qualified than I. This leans me towards extending her the B.O.D. Benefit of the Doubt.
In my humble opinion, she is right. The general public is not informed as to the true nature of transgenderism. And until they are, we'll continue to suffer public ridicule, the defeats of anti-discrimination bills, and even worse, our own in fighting.
What are WE to do about it?
Well, this is where the firestorm took off. Fueled from the residual anger over the ENDA debacle, and I suspect a fair amount of fustration with the HRC, many transfolk proceded to attack Susan Stanton's position, as described by this article. What I found most troubling was not the instant call to express this disapproval. It was the lack of respect shown towards her by not hearing her side, in her own words.
Ms Stanton finally did reply to this article on her personal webpages by writing this statement.
I'm willing, after reading both items, to give the benefit of the doubt to Susan Stanton. In my opinion, the issue at hand is NOT what Susan thinks, it's her candid explanation of what she believes the general public's and most politican's views are.
That belief is that the population at large and many politicans see transgender Americans as "men in dresses".
In specific she wrote
"Contrary to the St. Petersburg Times article, I do not see members of the transgender community as “men wearing dresses.” However, I do feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding by the general public that being transgender is simply a matter of men wanting to “dress up as women.” Most people do not understand the medical nature of being a transgender and therefore cannot understand the need or justification for non-discrimination protection in employment and housing."
The St Petersburg times article stated this, to which she was addressing.
"Susan has met hundreds of other people like her. She was among the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people lobbying for a law that would make it illegal for others to discriminate against them.
But Susan has said all along that she's not like other transgender people. She feels uncomfortable even looking at some, "like I'm seeing a bunch of men in dresses."
Eventually, she decided it was too early for transgender people to be federally protected. People need more time, more education, she says. "The transgender groups boo me, now, when I speak. Isn't that ironic?
"But I don't blame the human rights groups from separating the transgender people from the protected groups. Most Americans aren't ready for us yet," Susan says. Transgender people need to be able to prove they're still viable workers -- especially in the mainstream.
"The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies' rooms will be invaded by guys in drag," Susan says, "instead of someone like me."
Is she off base with her perception? She does have the experience of a very public firing, lobbying of Congress for the passage of ENDA and has been a fairly active speaker in the last 12 months. More qualified than I. This leans me towards extending her the B.O.D. Benefit of the Doubt.
In my humble opinion, she is right. The general public is not informed as to the true nature of transgenderism. And until they are, we'll continue to suffer public ridicule, the defeats of anti-discrimination bills, and even worse, our own in fighting.
What are WE to do about it?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Ah, yes.. What's a little "T" amongst friends?
For those who read John Aravosis' Swiss Cheese piece in Salon you can spare yourselves the repeat. For those less "fortunate", I've linked it above.
Mr Aravosis proffers an opinion that the LGB(T) community as a whole wants ENDA with or without the gender identity provisions.
However, the piece is titled " How did the T get in LGBT?" His entire assertion is that the T does not belong in with LGB. Mr Aravosis chooses to use the Wikipedia version of the LGBT history. We all know the hours of painstaking fact checking and vetting that done there..... Hell, Dan Rather did more vetting on his "Bush's National Guard " piece.... Let's actually review some facts.
1.) The T came first
The "T" in the LGBT Movement...
It's a hot August night in San Francisco in 1966 -- three years before the famed Stonewall. Compton's Cafeteria, in the seedy Tenderloin district, is hopping with its usual assortment of transgender people, young street hustlers, and down-and-out regulars. The management, annoyed by the noisy crowd at one table, calls the police. When a surly cop, accustomed to manhandling Compton's clientele, attempts to arrest one of the queens, she throws her coffee in his face. Mayhem erupts -- windows break, furniture flies through the air. Police reinforcements arrive, and the fighting spills into the street. For the first time, the drag queens band together to fight back, getting the better of the cops, whom they kick and stomp with their high-heeled shoes and beat with their heavy purses. For everyone at Compton's that night, one thing was certain -- things would never be the same again. This act of resistance was a dramatic turning point for the transgender community, and the beginning of a new human rights struggle that continues to this very day. For almost 40 years, it was an almost-forgotten footnote until the recent film documentary Screaming Queens recovered the story for today's audiences.
Somewhere in the early 70's the movement to "mainstream" homosexuality started rolling. The idea that all gay men wore panties and all lesbians had hairy armpits and drove semis were stereotypes that had to be buried.And rightfully so. However,this resulted the sweeping the Queens and Fairies under the Yellow Brick Road.
A good yet brief history of the Trans/HRC schism can be read here
2.) Not all gay men are Will Truman.....
Gender identity protects effeminate gay men and butch lesbians as much, if not more that transgendered persons. While within certain demographics of the gay community, the white collared Tom Ford wannabes ( "Not that there's anything wrong with that....."), and the Angelina Jolie'd Lipstick Lesbians anything non conforming in presentation draws negative attention to themselves. We trans folks do the same with the "French Maid" and " Sissy Sluts". Yet what of the Jack McFarlands? the Nancy Boys, Tomboys, Chapstick Lesbians, Dykes, Bulls or not, and your garden variety Queers? Yes Queer. Isn't THAT the common thread we share?
We are a Union of Queer Folk.
Let's really discuss his premise here. How DID the T get in LGBT?
His argument of incremental rights has been floated by many supporting a non gender identity version of ENDA. The talking points go like this "Civil rights legislation -- hell, all legislation -- is a series of compromises. You rarely get everything you want, nor do you get it all at once. Blacks, for example, won the right to vote in 1870. Women didn't get that same right until 1920".
Mr Aravosis' explanation of incremental rights would have meant that blacks and women were in the same fight for voting rights in the 1870 and that someone in Congress decided to eliminate women from The Fifteenth Amendment.
Based on his "logic", incremental rights would have actually worked like this:
"Light skinned Blacks, for example, won the right to vote in 1870. Dark skinned blacks didn't get that same right until 1920."
For Mr Aravosis, any ENDA is better than no ENDA is a cover for his transphobia.
That "I started asking friends and colleagues, ranging from senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment to apolitical friends around the country to the tens of thousands of daily readers of my blog" and "if they thought we should pass ENDA this year even without gender identity. Everyone felt bad about taking gender identity out of ENDA, everyone supported transgender rights, and everyone told me "pass it anyway." The final quotation marks are his. As if everyone one of them replied with exactly that answer.
Hmmm? I can see this conversation now, over Martinis at Halo.
"Trans folk are nice enough people though, even if they are riding on our shirt tails. "
" Of course I like transgender people, some of my best friends are transgendered."
Mr Aravosis, I don't care if you're trans phobic. I'm use to transphobia from 80% of the population, just please drop the "Holier than Thou" and "Song and Dance"
Mr Aravosis proffers an opinion that the LGB(T) community as a whole wants ENDA with or without the gender identity provisions.
However, the piece is titled " How did the T get in LGBT?" His entire assertion is that the T does not belong in with LGB. Mr Aravosis chooses to use the Wikipedia version of the LGBT history. We all know the hours of painstaking fact checking and vetting that done there..... Hell, Dan Rather did more vetting on his "Bush's National Guard " piece.... Let's actually review some facts.
1.) The T came first
The "T" in the LGBT Movement...
It's a hot August night in San Francisco in 1966 -- three years before the famed Stonewall. Compton's Cafeteria, in the seedy Tenderloin district, is hopping with its usual assortment of transgender people, young street hustlers, and down-and-out regulars. The management, annoyed by the noisy crowd at one table, calls the police. When a surly cop, accustomed to manhandling Compton's clientele, attempts to arrest one of the queens, she throws her coffee in his face. Mayhem erupts -- windows break, furniture flies through the air. Police reinforcements arrive, and the fighting spills into the street. For the first time, the drag queens band together to fight back, getting the better of the cops, whom they kick and stomp with their high-heeled shoes and beat with their heavy purses. For everyone at Compton's that night, one thing was certain -- things would never be the same again. This act of resistance was a dramatic turning point for the transgender community, and the beginning of a new human rights struggle that continues to this very day. For almost 40 years, it was an almost-forgotten footnote until the recent film documentary Screaming Queens recovered the story for today's audiences.
Somewhere in the early 70's the movement to "mainstream" homosexuality started rolling. The idea that all gay men wore panties and all lesbians had hairy armpits and drove semis were stereotypes that had to be buried.And rightfully so. However,this resulted the sweeping the Queens and Fairies under the Yellow Brick Road.
A good yet brief history of the Trans/HRC schism can be read here
2.) Not all gay men are Will Truman.....
Gender identity protects effeminate gay men and butch lesbians as much, if not more that transgendered persons. While within certain demographics of the gay community, the white collared Tom Ford wannabes ( "Not that there's anything wrong with that....."), and the Angelina Jolie'd Lipstick Lesbians anything non conforming in presentation draws negative attention to themselves. We trans folks do the same with the "French Maid" and " Sissy Sluts". Yet what of the Jack McFarlands? the Nancy Boys, Tomboys, Chapstick Lesbians, Dykes, Bulls or not, and your garden variety Queers? Yes Queer. Isn't THAT the common thread we share?
We are a Union of Queer Folk.
Let's really discuss his premise here. How DID the T get in LGBT?
His argument of incremental rights has been floated by many supporting a non gender identity version of ENDA. The talking points go like this "Civil rights legislation -- hell, all legislation -- is a series of compromises. You rarely get everything you want, nor do you get it all at once. Blacks, for example, won the right to vote in 1870. Women didn't get that same right until 1920".
Mr Aravosis' explanation of incremental rights would have meant that blacks and women were in the same fight for voting rights in the 1870 and that someone in Congress decided to eliminate women from The Fifteenth Amendment.
Based on his "logic", incremental rights would have actually worked like this:
"Light skinned Blacks, for example, won the right to vote in 1870. Dark skinned blacks didn't get that same right until 1920."
For Mr Aravosis, any ENDA is better than no ENDA is a cover for his transphobia.
That "I started asking friends and colleagues, ranging from senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment to apolitical friends around the country to the tens of thousands of daily readers of my blog" and "if they thought we should pass ENDA this year even without gender identity. Everyone felt bad about taking gender identity out of ENDA, everyone supported transgender rights, and everyone told me "pass it anyway." The final quotation marks are his. As if everyone one of them replied with exactly that answer.
Hmmm? I can see this conversation now, over Martinis at Halo.
"Trans folk are nice enough people though, even if they are riding on our shirt tails. "
" Of course I like transgender people, some of my best friends are transgendered."
Mr Aravosis, I don't care if you're trans phobic. I'm use to transphobia from 80% of the population, just please drop the "Holier than Thou" and "Song and Dance"
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Example of Character
Some of us may be aware that Donna Rose, a well known member of the trans community and a Board member at HRC has resigned. Having read HRC's stance on ENDA and its decision to oppose immediate markup of the bill, and Joe Solomonese's speech at SCC in September, I found her convictions refreshing.
While HRC is now scrambling to recover, PassENDAnow, and this latest statement from Joe Solomonese both are pushing for full support of an inclusive ENDA, not the Barney Frank proposed and Nancy Pelosi supported "Cert's" bill, " Two, two, two bill's in one". Is this too late to regain support from the trans community? Were they always onboard and just looking for a way to delay the markup in order to truly garner the votes needed?
I say it doesn't matter. Anything short of an immediate rebuke to Rep. Frank's proposal and a call to action from the entire GLBT community in support of that position is unacceptable. It says they would be willing to "sell" us out. It draws into question their only recent conversion to include transgender rights.
People , this is nothing new for HRC, the HALF Rights Campaign.
The ironic thing is it is all a moot point. The current administration will veto it. Our solidarity would encourge those wavering on passage to have the courage the next time it is introduced. Yet movement on this bill was to show force and unity from the GLBT community.
And HRC flinched.
While HRC is now scrambling to recover, PassENDAnow, and this latest statement from Joe Solomonese both are pushing for full support of an inclusive ENDA, not the Barney Frank proposed and Nancy Pelosi supported "Cert's" bill, " Two, two, two bill's in one". Is this too late to regain support from the trans community? Were they always onboard and just looking for a way to delay the markup in order to truly garner the votes needed?
I say it doesn't matter. Anything short of an immediate rebuke to Rep. Frank's proposal and a call to action from the entire GLBT community in support of that position is unacceptable. It says they would be willing to "sell" us out. It draws into question their only recent conversion to include transgender rights.
People , this is nothing new for HRC, the HALF Rights Campaign.
The ironic thing is it is all a moot point. The current administration will veto it. Our solidarity would encourge those wavering on passage to have the courage the next time it is introduced. Yet movement on this bill was to show force and unity from the GLBT community.
And HRC flinched.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)