Seen recently on Facebook:
I suppose its inconceivable (yes, unlike Vizzini…
…I actually do know the meaning of the word) that they took a walk FOR fairness?
Look, even I’m willing tio admit that that isn’t likely, but if you’re unwilling to accept the possibility that it is, then you’re unwilling to deal with the historical reality that in 1975 trans rights only became part of Minnesota’s legal vocabulary because a Republican listened to trans people when Democratic politicos and the local proto-Gay, Inc., refused to listen to them.
Not mentioned in this article from Vol. 6, No. 23 of Drag (from 1976) was the actual head of MCGR – a fellow named Steve Endean. By 1980 he would be in D.C. as initial head of the organization that is now known as the Human Rights Campaign.
Minnesota-to-D.C. is a good clip.
I suspect that Morgan Meneses-Sheets won’t take five years to get there from Maryland.
Now, as to yesterday and today…
I really don’t know if any of the Republicans or ostensibly-conservative Democrats in the Maryland Senate are moderates of the Arne Carlson mode – but I do know that today’s Gay, Inc., refuses in any way to make use of the reality that, in years past, not only have there been Republican elected officials who were as supportive of trans rights as they were of gay rights but there also have been elected officials of both parties who were more supportive of trans rights than they were of gay rights (hence the California Legislature’s 1977 simultaneous recognition of gender transition and banning of gay marriage.)
That doesn’t fit the Gay, Inc., incrementalism-or-die-(us-die?-don’t-be-silly-why-you-of-course) political narrative. With the monolithic ‘everything trans is more problematic because we say its problematic and if you dare question us on that we won’t start doing the education that we strongly implied we were doing years ago but really weren’t’ modus operandi, nothing ever need be questioned.
Its trans…
More education is needed…
Trust us.
Nothing ever need be questioned (certainly not the claims of why ‘more education’ is still necessary.) No research ever need be conducted. No history ever need be acknowledged.
And Minnesota?
Its gay elite of the mid-1970s, tried to do what Maryland’s gay elite did a couple of decades later: ram though gay-only ordinances (in this instance: Minneapolis and St. Paul) and then aim its collective scolex at state law without adding trans people to the mix. Trans people said, “Oh no you don’t!” The local Demo-Gay, Inc., moved forward with a gay-only statewide bill, but a Republican tried – albeit unsuccessfully – to add trans people to the bill. Ultimately even the trans-free bill failed, though not – as some gay-centric ‘history’ declares – because of the trans hubbub; rather, gay teachers were seen as more scary than trans people in general.
No statewide gay rights law of any kind in Minnesota until 1993.
Yet, almost forgotten is that the Spring 1975 hubbub led to a successful effort to tack Carlson’s trans language onto the existing 1974 gay-only Minneapolis ordinance.
And, had that 1974-75 ordinance not been trans-inclusive by the 1990s, it is (cue Vizzini) inconceivable that the 1991 St. Paul ordinance (replacing the old, Anita-murdered gay-only one) would have been trans-inclusive and even moreso that the state law that passed in 1993 would have been trans-inclusive.
Some will say that the events of 1974-75 in Minneapolis, however, constitute proof that ‘incremental progress’ works.
Those who live in reality will point out that it is the only instance where gay-first, trans-second incrementalism took as little as 18 months. As opposed as I am to the apartheid of gay hegemony, even I could tolerate 18 months of gays having the right to discriminate against me – if I actually knew that it would only be 18 months or, for that matter, if there was any indication whatsoever that any jurisdiction anywhere would ever repeat the 18-month trans gestation.
Will Maryland’s Gay, Inc., learn the real trans lesson of 2011? Will it remove the ‘gay marriage’ suppository from its brain long enough to learn lessons from other eras of trans history?
I doubt it.
8 hours, 23 minutes to go until HB235 is truly dead.
ENDAblog 
Growing up in the ’90s when Arne Carlson was governor of Minnesota, I always thought he was kind of a putz. It’s nice to see that he had some redeeming qualities before he became governor, though!
Well,, remember the real punchline of that historical vignette: He’s the governor who ultimately, in 1993, signed into law the trans-inclusive law that he tried to bring into being as a legislator in 1975.
You’re right – I didn’t realize that until you pointed it out. Looks like I’ll have to revise my view of his putzishness as governor, too!
And of course, I have to admit that he wasn’t all that bad compared to the two bozos who came after him in office…
Contrary to the spin coming from EQ MD and their trans butt kissers, it IS a big win anytime you kill bad legislation..
And it should be viewed universally as a big loss for Morgan Meneses-Sheets and her minions – but, doubtlessly, they’ll spin it into some sort of ‘victory’ that gay caviar brains alone can comprehend.
Hey Kat…I’ll take that appletini now.
What? You mean you don’t want one shaken by Joe Solmonese and stirred by Morgan Meneses-Sheets?
History also reflects that Allen Spear was the author and primary proponent of the transgender inclusive amendment to the Minnesota Human Rights Act in 1993 that was the first state human rights act to include “gender identity” as a protected class. He was a tireless advocate on this issue until it became law.
Well, Spear is certainly someone who moved on the issue over the years. However, the Drag magazine item stands on its own for how things were in 1975.
As for 1993, the bill that became law gets to stand on its own as well – and Spear was indeed one of its lead sponsors. There are credible sources out there indicating that, had push come to shove, he would have been willing to kill the trans language in 1993 but that didn’t happen – so, he rightly gets credit for what did become law.
Okay, Katrina, but he did push for transgender inclusiveness ultimately and the law did pass which was groundbreaking at the time. And he put his personal credibility with colleagues and voters on the line to get it passed. He was the one who got the votes lined up to pass the law. I have no doubt that he had reservations even in the 1990’s although they had receded over time. But as the political cliche goes we shouldn’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. He was ultimately a transformative figure in achieving transgender rights and he certainly could have compromised transgenders away even in the 1990’s to ensure passage of a less inclusive law.
Jaime – we’re on the same page on this. I simply feel obligated to show the entire historical arc.
But, indeed, to say that it would not have become law in 1993 without him is in no way inaccurate.
I hate to engage in what may seem a blatant act of wholly inappropriate self-promotion in a serious forum for intellectual engagement with Real Issues rather than a wholly inappropriate (and… unseemly ?-) instance of oozing fangirl worship of Teh Shawn…
OK I LIE
… but you may or may not find the first 5 seconds of wholly improvised self-mockery in this video A/STONISHING: bonze blayk’s Anomaly – NO ACTION
PS: A most impressive post; thank you Katrina! What’s worse… Historical Revisionism, or the Memory Hole? I see them ever walking hand in hand…
[…] A Word I DO Know The Meaning Of […]