A Dahl’s House

A poll today shows that Proposition 8—which would repeal California’s marriage equality—is now leading. Not coincidentally there’s been tens of millions of dollars sent from out-of-state by the pro-bigotry Christianist forces.

Don’t let Prop 8 pass! Donate now to No on Prop 8. If you want to be idealistic, do so because it’s the right thing to do. If for no other reason than self-interest, do so—because you can be sure that if the fundies are successful in turning back marriage equality, it won’t be the last anti-discrimination protections they’ll try to take away.

The National Stonewall Democrats have a page for trans people and allies to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. This is a great opportunity to raise our visibility. So if you’re trans, or a trans ally, and are would like to see the Democrats retake the White House, why not donate to Obama’s campaign through the site today (whether it’s a little or a lot). Then tell your friends and ask them to do the same, as well as spread the word on your blog or message boards that you post to. Let’s see if we can move up a few notches on ActBlue’s list of top online donors.

From a right-wing rag that I won’t dignify with a link:

A Christian civil-liberties organization announced on Thursday it is representing an alliance of residents, congregations and businesses against Hamtramck, Mich., to overturn a city law privileging homosexuals and cross dressers.

The Thomas More Law Center’s clients are targeting an ordinance that permits males who profess to consider themselves women and wish to use women’s bathrooms in businesses and public buildings. Facility owners and managers who prohibit a cross-dressing male from entering a women’s lavatory can be fined $500 for each day they enforce that policy and could face civil litigation.

On Tuesday, the coalition rallied in front of Hamtramck City Hall and reported they had gotten over 1,000 city residents to sign a petition placing a measure on the November 2008 election ballot to strike down the law.

And once again, while the “virtual normal” crowd can talk themselves blue in the face about how the LGBs have nothing to do with the Ts, the haters don’t bother to distinguish… This seems to be concerted tactic, since the specter of “men in women’s bathrooms” is some that’s raised in LGBT rights repeal efforts in Florida and elsewhere.

The other day I was listening to “Fresh Air” interview with an author of book on Cold War politics and I think there’s a number of lessons to be learned from that in the current tensions between much of the trans communities and the Human Rights Campaign. Especially in light of discussions about a potential meeting between HRC senior staff and director and trans activists.

The author talked about how through the Cold War there was an on-going tension between some conservatives, whose POV was that the Soviet Union was inherently evil, so any negotiations with them were pointless (Barry Goldwater even opposed negotiations during the Cuban Missile Crisis!); vs. other conservatives who thought that while the Soviets were untrustworthy adversaries with goals that differed and even conflicted with ours, engagement still made sense, as well as negotiations in areas where there were shared interests.

In a related vein, American diplomacy has had a weakness in assuming that one is either fighting or talking, whereas other countries have no problem with simultaneously fighting and talking.

What does this have to do with HRC and a possible meeting? I don’t think HRC is an axis of evil, though I do think they’ve got their own agenda and proven that they’re promises can be broken. Nonetheless, I think is still makes sense to engage them.

The meeting is a bit of a no-win situation. Refusing to meet only plays into HRC’s hand because they can say that they tried to bridge things and the trans communities refused. OTOH, HRC wants to meet privately with only a handful of people, leading to concerns that they’ll stack the deck with the few trans activists who are supporting HRC, which isn’t ideal either.

But given the Hobson’s choice, the former is the worse outcome. If trans leaders do meet with HRC they can make the list of attendees an issue, i.e. meeting with friendlies isn’t exactly getting feedback from the people who are pissed off. They can also make clear that any discussions will be on the record and they will share publicly what’s discussed.

I also think it’s perfectly reasonable for trans activists to demand moving the purposed date of the meeting—which is in the middle of the Southern Comfort Conference, one of the largest trans conferences in the country, which many trans leaders will be attending. After all we wouldn’t expect Joe and company to meet during one of their fundraising dinners. If HRC refuses, then raise hell about that. Frankly, flexibility about the date is no different that the sort of “trust building” over minor points that’s a routine step in many difficult negotiation settings. I.e. if HRC isn’t willing move the date out of respect to the trans community, then that casts into doubt sincerity of the whole meeting itself.

As far as any promises HRC might make this meeting, I’ll refer to one of the few points where I agree with Ronald Reagan: “trust but verify.” I.e. hold HRC’s feet to the fire to provide detailed criteria about how they plan to fulfill those promises—criteria that is specific enough that they can be held accountable. (FWIW, I think it’s only fair for HRC to ask the same of the trans communities.)

On a related note, we shouldn’t demonize people who choose to attend this meeting, nor folks like Diego Sanchez who cross the picket lines to address HRC events, merely for doing so. Diplomacy means meeting with your enemies as well as your friends. Talking to one’s enemies may not convince them to change their positions, but not talking to them is almost certain to fail to do so. That said, we can certainly hold these individuals accountable for the positions they espouse. If we don’t feel like they’re representing our POV, we should let them and others know.

None of this precludes the trans communities from also continuing to urge boycotts of HRC’s fundraisers etc. until HRC’s actions demonstrate that they’ve changed in ways that are satisfactory. But as part of that, I think it’s important for trans activists not just say “don’t support HRC” but also to provide alternatives. The “Left Out Party” protest outside HRC’s recent fundraising dinner in San Francisco did a good job of this. Sure there was a protest, including the traditional picket line, but we also presented Human Rights Hero awards and had our own party—which we pointedly noted was inclusive of everyone, including any HRC members who choose to cross the street. That said, there’s been some criticism about the protest hurting fundraising efforts to fight Prop. 8. Which could have easily been countered by the “Left Out” organizers pointing out where else people could donate money that they would’ve otherwise given at the dinner.

We also need to be able to present a clear, concise story to the vast majority of LGB people who aren’t familiar with the ENDA debacle. As well as why gender identity/expression affects everyone, not just trans people. When I’ve done so, I’ve generally found people understand why we’re pissed off and are supportive. Likewise, being about to provide the 60-second education about how T people have been involved in LGBT activism for decades. My quickest version of that is pointing out that California gays and lesbians are enjoying marriage equality thanks to the efforts of trans man Shannon Minter, the lead attorney in the case—and what if he’d decided not to get involved because of the LG (OK mostly gay men) activists who argue T issues have nothing to do with LGB issues?

(FWIW, I think there’s also a story to be presented about how HRC’s attitude and actions on ENDA are reflective of similar issues with the larger LGB communities, i.e. their treatment of local LGBT organizations, their focus on presenting LGB people as “virtually normal” and shying away from LGB people who aren’t straight-acting, etc. Again, it’s a matter of making people realize our fight has things in common as their fight.)

The fact of the matter is that the PR war does matter. HRC has proven itself to be pretty inept at it—at least among those who know the full story (and what does that suggest about the effectiveness of their lobbying efforts?)—we don’t want to be equally inept.

The trans blogosphere has been buzzing the last few days over the Human Rights Campaign’s hiring on ordained Baptist minister Allyson Robinson as their Associate Director of Diversity.

I personally know Allyson from the My Husband Betty forum and I’d agree with Mercedes Allen’s characterization of it being a case of “optimistic, hopeful transfolk trying to step into a situation to make a positive difference.” Is she being naive? Quite possibly, but she won’t find out unless she tries—although I and others have cautioned her to be wary of being used as the token trans woman. To be honest, it’s not a job I’d wish on my worst enemy and Allyson has already taken heat from some trans activists for being a supposed quisling.

That said, while I’ve got no love for HRC, painting every move in terms of evil intent is counter-productive. It’s important to give adversaries carrots as well as sticks. Otherwise if they think you’ll never be satisfied, what incentive is there to change their behavior? Likewise, it can alienate potential allies, as Bil has noted. And praising things like this hire doesn’t mean that we can’t also note our anger at their current position on ENDA, which would exclude protections for gender identity and expression (for not only trans people, but anyone (gay or hetero) who’s not straight-acting enough).

It may be that Allyson’s hiring is a simply defensive move on HRC’s part. Even true, that’s not entirely a bad thing, in that it shows HRC is feeling the heat. Regardless, I think we ought to be applauding the appointment—and simultaneously challenging HRC to demonstrate that Allyson won’t be just a figurehead.

I think it’s important to provide kudos/carrots as well as sticks, even to someone as intensively disliked as HRC is by much of the trans communities due to their broken promise on ENDA. If nothing else, it’s just good strategy—if your adversary thinks you’ll never be satisfied no matter what, then what incentive do they have for doing what you’d like them do?

Likewise, I agree with Donna Rose that the knee-jerk vitriol toward HRC on the part of some trans activist is becoming counter-productive. In a variety of activist arenas, I’ve seen folks who are “infatuated with anger” and who seem to assume that rage equals commitment to the cause. Now don’t get me wrong, there is often plenty to be angry about—but one has to channel that anger effectively. Part of that is knowing when to rage and when to be diplomatic. To be able to disagree violently, but but yet civilly. Part of it is remembering that adversaries are people too. As a friend of mine said: “Be fierce, but be loving too.” Constant vilification may be emotionally satisfying, but it also tends to alienate potential allies—and the small size of the trans communities inherently means we’ll need allies. There are LGB folks who do think HRC’s actions on ENDA were shameful, and others who, when the story is told, are willing to support us. But unrelenting, undiscriminating rage is off-putting to say the least and just plays into HRC’s hands by allowing them to write us off as a bunch bitter cranks.

I was all set to write a happy little post about Christian Siriano retiring his catch phase, “hot tranny mess.” Apparently someone clued him in that it might be offensive after he compared drag queens and trans people to “white trash.” Maybe the light went on after hot pissed-off trans actress Candis Cayne ripped him a new one after he used the phrase on stage at the Logo NewNextNow Awards that she was hosting. Maybe he even read my open letter about why it’s so not fierce when “tranny” is used by someone who isn’t trans.

I was willing to overlook that it was one of those not-quite-an-apology “I wish that my words were not taken in that way” apologies that’s all too common with public figures these days. And yes, he even mentioned that some of his best friends are trans. (BTW Christian, if you’re reading this, just a heads-up, we trans people don’t exist solely to provide you with fashion inspiration.) As I said before, I think it just never occurred to him that as a self-described “very flamboyant gay man” that he could say something that’s considered derogatory speech, and I’m willing to overlook all that because I’m just glad that he publicly said he’d stop and maybe, just maybe, that would get other people to think twice about using it as a catch phrase.

What’s got me not-so-happy are the comments on various gay blogs about how trans people are overreacting and picking on poor little Princess Puffysleeves. How come you’re so humorless? Gawd you’re so P.C. Can’t you see it’s a just a joke? What’s the big deal anyway? We call each other faggots all the time, it’s no big deal. Get it over! Not to mention, I’m sick of being hounded for not being properly appreciative of T people.

Funny how those arguments sound oh so familiar. I’ve heard the exact same things when I’ve asked clueless straight kids not to use “that’s so gay” as a put-down. Or when women ask not to be called “bitches” and “hos.” Or when the Sambo’s restaurant chain was pressured to change its name.

To be honest, I had more respect for the out-and-out haters – did you know I’m a “breeder with a mental disorder”? – because at least with them there was no pretense. They’d probably get along swimmingly with the high-profile conservative bloggers (who I won’t dignify with links) who had these recent headlines: “Shame on Dennis Hastert for joining tranny lobbist firm” and “Boycott NBC and its tranny sympathizers.” (Companies that value LGBT diversity, the horror!)

And of course there was this: don’t you have bigger things to worry about?

Well, yeah, actually I do. Trans people face hate crimes at a rate up to 16 times higher than gays and lesbians, yet we have to fight to be included in anti-hate crime laws. There’s some segments of the trans communities where only one in four trans people have a full-time job and more than half live in poverty, yet we’re asked to step aside so straight-acting gays and lesbians can get employment non-discrimination protections. Even when “transgender” protections are offered, crossdressers like myself are often excluded from them.

The thing is, those are huge issues that are going to take time and effort to overcome. Whereas not referring to someone by a term they find offensive is a small thing. A simple thing. The human thing to do.

But evidentially even that is too much effort for some people.

By now you’ve undoubtedly heard that for the first time, a survey shows that California voters favor marriage equality by a 51-42 percentage margin. The more significant thing is the demographic change that’s driving. Back in 1977, when the Field poll first posed the question, only 28 percent of Californians agreed. What’s changed in three decades? Several generations that have gone up seeing gays and lesbians in the media, and knowing them personally. Both youth and knowing someone who’s homosexual are both the strongest predictors of acceptance—and acceptance directly corolates with age: 68 percent of those 18 to 29 supported marriage equality, compared to only 36 percent of those 65 and older.

That said, if the initiative to change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage gets on November’s ballot it’s going to be a tough, nasty fight. (A different poll last week, found that 54 percent of registered support the initiative.) Already the fundies have taken out full-page ads in the local papers urging support for “traditional marriage.”

But the phrase itself—the fact that they need to distinguish it from plain old “marriage”—shows how they’re fighting what ultimately will be a losing battle.

My take-away from it all: visibility matters. Kids today see gays and lesbians in the media and in person. I’m not quite as optimistic as Jenny Boylan that you can’t hate someone who’s story you know, but the fundies are right to be freaking out over the increased public visibility of gays and lesbians. It has normalized what was once the unspeakable.

I realize that not every trans person—whether you’re transsexual, crossdresser, whatever—wants to be out or feels that they can be.  But think at least give it some thought. Even just being out in public helps people know we exist.

Glad someone called him on it to his face. As I’ve said before, it’s time to retire “hot tranny mess.”

Siriano had another fun run-in with the evening’s host, Dirty Sexy Money’s transgendered star Candis Cayne.

Siriano was onstage and uttered his catchphrase “hot tranny mess.” Cayne came from backstage, my source says, and hissed, “I hope you aren’t talking about me.”

Siriano insisted he wasn’t, cooing, “You’re a hot tranny success!”

Contrast this with Dominique from “America’s Top Model.”

TVGuide.com: C’mon, you’re not at least a little sore about all the transvestite remarks you kept getting from the judges?

Dominique: Honestly, I took being called a transvestite as a compliment. I mean, transvestites are some of the most beautiful women in the world. They carry themselves sometimes better than most women. There’s so much grace, poise, and the makeup and hair are perfect.

Dominique, you are so hot tranny fabuliciousness.