The Advocate Has Loooooooooooooooong Been Part of the Problem

Comments to a suck-up-to-St. Barney piece  by Kerry Eleveld in what is now passing for The Advocate:

no one in the gay community even cares anymore what Barney has to say, he has thrown us under the bus one too many times. he may be gay, but he is not part of our family any longer. I guess my point is, you can stop asking his opinion as well as publishing his stories, unless of course you are spot lighting republican crap, which then of course, have at it.

Not enough to the point? Try:

what a thoroughly disgusting waste of space this article is. Why does Kerry Eleveld always seem like she’s writing about her first date in her diary? You suck Kerry. You’re part of the problem.

Odd thing is…

So far as I can tell, neither comment came from a trans person.

More than a few people should take that as a very strong hint.

Anything to Deny How History Actually Has Taken Shape

Rex Wockner on the aftermath of the Obama speech:

The praise for Obama inside HRC’s fancy dinner and the denunciations of Obama in the streets of D.C. seemed to unequivocally confirm the split that’s emerged in the gay community in the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

Confim the split?

I have no qualms with that.

Its his ‘day one’ that I’m calling him out on.  

Once again, we have a gay man unable to acknowledge when ‘The T’ started a movement. 

The anti-Prop 8 protests were confirmation of the split that HRC, Barney Frank and John Aravosis triggered in 2007 over trans-inclusion in ENDA – and I’m being charitable by saying that the anti-Prop 8 protests were a confirmation of that.  Yes, there was plenty of overlap among the vocal anti-Prop 8 folks and the anti-Aravosisists, but the anti-Prop 8 protests largely ignored how the entire notion of ‘gay marriage primacy’ (1) is one largely concocted by the big-money, don’t-give-a-damn-about-the-street-queers interests that comprise HRC, and (2) pretty much erases transsexual legitimacy.

Life Where the Law is Real

From the Minnesota Department of Human Rights:

When she was hired by Wal-Mart in 2005, Chrissy Nakonsky explained to her employer that she was a transgender person transitioning from male to female, and that she self-identified as a woman. Although her legal name was Jeffrey, she was permitted to dress according to the women’s dress code, and to wear the name “Chrissy” on her name badge. Then one day in January 2006, a Wal-Mart assistant manager informed her that she would no longer be permitted to dress as a woman or to wear earrings or her hair in a ponytail. Some customers had complained and threatened to stop shopping at Wal-Mart unless she dressed as a man, the manager explained. Wal-Mart’s legal department subsequently advised her that she could not dress as a woman unless she had a doctor’s excuse, and that she would be terminated if she violated the men’s dress code without such an excuse.

On February 23, Nakonsky provided her employer with a note from her doctor, explaining that she is required as part of her transition to live full-time in the female role, including presenting herself fully as female. Two days later, her employer told her that despite the note, she would be required to dress according to the men’s dress code until her driver’s license and social security card said “female.” She asked why the rules kept changing. She was later told that she would be permitted to wear blouses and pants, but no dresses, no earrings and nothing too “feminine.” If she wished to wear a wig, it would have to be approved by management. She was also required to wear the name “Jeff” on her name tag instead of “Chrissy.” On March 20, she legally changed her name to Chrissy, and was allowed to use that name on her badge. In mid-April, she was finally allowed to dress according to the women’s dress code. Nakonsky filed a charge with the Department of Human Rights, alleging that Wal-Mart had discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation. “My attire did not conform to the respondent’s or its customers’ stereotyped notions of men and women… though I provided information about the Minnesota Human Rights Act and its requirements, the respondent insisted that they were not compelled to allow me to dress in a way that is consistent with my identified gender,” she stated in her charge.

What the Department’s Investigation Found

In answering the charge, Wal-Mart argued that it had acted appropriately and within the law. It had told Nakonsky that she could dress as a woman as long as her attire and presentation was professional, but her woman’s attire was not professional, Wal-Mart determined. The company requires all associates to use their proper name on their names badges, and when Nakonsky legally changed her name, Wal-Mart changed her name badge. Further, when Nakonsky brought in a doctor’s note diagnosing gender dysphoria and was to live full-time as a female, Wal-Mart allowed her to dress and conduct herself as a woman, it maintained.

Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, sexual orientation includes having an identity or self-image not traditionally associated with one’s biological gender. In its investigation, the Department of Human Rights determined that the weight of the evidence indicated that Wal-Mart had failed to treat Nakonsky in a manner that was consistent with her gender identity. It had “belatedly” allowed her to dress according to its women’s dress code, but very conservatively. Although it had required Nakonsky to use her proper or legal name rather than the name she was known by, “Chrissy,” it had allowed other, non-transgendered employees to wear nicknames on their badges. In addition, management knew that co-workers were shunning and harassing Nakonsky because of her gender identity and expression and creating a hostile work environment, but failed to prevent this harassment. Although Nakonsky had eventually left her job at Wal-Mart, she had done so because she had been subjected to intolerable working conditions involving illegal discrimination based on her gender identity. The Department found probable cause to believe that Wal-Mart had discriminated against Nakonsky in violation of the Human Rights Act, and that her termination was a “constructive discharge.”

The upshot?

Wal-Mart to Pay $12,000 in Settlement of Discrimination Charge by Transgender Employee

Case 48335, closed 2-13-09

Charging Party
Chrissy Nakonsky, Brainerd, MN

Respondent
Wal-Mart Stores Inc
702 SW 8th St
Bentonville, AR 72716-8312

…

In a negotiated settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to pay Chrissy Nakonsky $12,000, and to provide training at the store where Nakonsky had worked for salaried members of management on employer obligations under the Human Rights Act regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Minnesota is one of those states that don’t exist in the minds of the incrementalism acolytes: Its definition of “sexual orientation” is trans-inclusive and was so from the moment the state enacted it.

Think about that and this case when the Aravosisists again proclaim – and they will – that lack of trans-inclusion is an acceptable outcome for ENDA.

Hypocrisy Much?

By now I’m sure most folx have heard Bill Clinton’s on-the-fly analysis at Netroots of gay rights circa 1993-96:

You want to talk about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military, and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting me some support in the Congress. Now that’s the truth.

…

Now, while we’re at it, let me just say one thing about DOMA, since you — the reason I signed DOMA was — and I said when I signed it — that I thought the question of whether gays should marry should be left up to states and to religious organizations, and if any church or other religious body wanted to recognize gay marriage, they ought to. We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the 11 referenda much later — in 2004, in the election — which the Republicans put on the ballot to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it’s obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican Congress from presenting that. The President doesn’t even get to veto that. The Congress can refer constitutional amendments to the states. I didn’t like signing DOMA….

Now…

Look at the commentary reaction over at The John’s place:

Which party was in control of both houses of Congress when DADT was passed? Democrats. LGBT people need to blame the Democrats for DADT.

…

Clinton’s DoMA statements are crap. He hurt us because he was protecting us?!?

And that was just from one person.

An aberration?

His longwinded “It ain’t my fault! Blame Congress!” response pretty much says it all: No, I will not. I wouldn’t take much of what Slick Willie says at face value. he was never a friend of the LGBT community.

Two aberrations?

No, he was never a friend of the LGBT community, nor of any progressive liberal.

When St. Barney - aided and abetted by his Aravosisist shills – declare that ”You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress” ends the discussion about the ENDA fisasco of 2007, we are expected to bend over and receive it as the revealed and unchallengeable  gospel.  But when the person who was president of the United States at the time that the gay rights industry was so full of its own bullshit that it thought that it could shove themselves down the throats of the military with no blowback says “You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress” – and, unlike St. Barney and his Greek chorus, is accurate in saying so – it is unacceptable analysis.

And, as for “Clinton’s DoMA statements are crap”?

Meth?

X?

Or stupidity by birth?

Or – and, as you might imagine, this gets my vote – all of the above plus a heapin’ helpin’ of Marriage Derangement Syndrome-fueled arrogance?

Or does it really matter?

And the Bell Rings for Round Two

For informational purposes: 2009 H.R. 2981

In case that link is unworkable [UPDATE: I just noticed that it isn't working; here is a non-THOMAS link], here are the key portions:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

 (a) In General- In this Act:

…

              6) 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.

SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION.

 (a) Employer Rules and Policies-

•  
  (1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a covered entity from enforcing rules and policies that do not intentionally circumvent the purposes of this Act, if the rules or policies are designed for, and uniformly applied to, all individuals regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. 
  (2) SEXUAL HARASSMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit a covered entity from taking adverse action against an individual because of a charge of sexual harassment against that individual, provided that rules and policies on sexual harassment, including when adverse action is taken, are designed for, and uniformly applied to, all individuals regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
  (3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.
  (4) ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NOT REQUIRED- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the construction of new or additional facilities.
  (5) DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.

 (b) Employee Benefits- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a covered entity to treat an unmarried couple in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits.

(c) Definition of Marriage- As used in this Act, the term `married’ refers to marriage as such term is defined in section 7 of title I, United States Code (referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act).

Now…

Go talk amongst yah-selves.

The John: The Liar

My posting of this isn’t a defense of St. Barney (though arguably is is by default) as much as a signal flare to anyone who hasn’t figured out that The John’s dementias aren’t limited to transphobia and Marriage Derangement Syndrome.  He appears now to have crossed the rubicon into the land of generally-self-absorbed-whackjobdom-cum-delusion.

From Law Dork (re: The John’s ravings about the Obama DOJ’s DOMA brief):

The two main problems that I have with Aravosis’s coverage are:

1. His continued misstatements regarding whether Justice should have filed a brief in this case.
2. His “comparing us to incest and pedophilia” claim is overstated and does not withstand any serious, legal scrutiny.

First of all, it’s clear that his poisoning of the well most likely led to Chairman Frank’s misimpressions about the brief….

Hmmmmm….

Can anyone recall The John poisoning other wells in the relatively recent past?  Like, maybe, around a year and nine months ago?

Here, I feel obligated to plug an article I have coming out in the Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, which details how disingenuous The John and others on the anti-inclusion side were during the ENDA debacle of 2007.  The video to my symposium presentation is here, but the article, ”Where the Rubber Left the Road: The Use and Misuse of History in the Quest for the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act,”  will be available at 18 Temple Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 397 (2009).

Hopefully, wide dissemination of it will remove whatever of The John’s legitimacy that might remain.

Attention Marriage Derangement Syndrome Sufferers (Yet Again): ‘Gay Marriage’ is NOT Synonymous with ‘LGBT Rights’

A twit’s tweet as reported by Queer Channel Media:

Gays who supported Obama b/c of his position on LGBT issues – you’ve been had. He’s now on record as supporting DOMA.

Any one willing to bet what the position of ‘OxyChaz’ was regarding supporting St. Barney’s 2007 Plessy v. Ferguson Restoration Act ENDA?

Talk to Your Own Transphobic Brethren, Barney

St. Barney belches in Queer Channel Media:

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Frank said he expects to introduce the measure next month and that Congress would act on the measure in the fall.

He noted that he would not wait until the Senate completes action on the hate crimes legislation before he introduces ENDA.

In the Senate, Dansky said lawmakers won’t act on ENDA until the House has passed the legislation and the Senate completes action on a hate crimes measure. Debate on health care reform and Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court also could delay action on ENDA, she said.

Frank said he expects congressional hearings on ENDA before the measure sees a vote because lawmakers must still be educated on the bill’s gender identity provisions.

“Efforts to include transgender people have failed in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland,” he said. “It doesn’t get easier when you throw in South Carolina and Utah.”

You don’t cause a disaster and then get to point to that disaster as an ‘act of god’ to get out from under obligations.  Your de facto compadres – greed-addled transphobic gay men and lesbians – dishonestly and immorally manufactured the ‘unable to pass T-anything’ realities in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland.  You have no right to point to any of that as an excuse for anything.  What those people did to us is wrapped around your neck and its staying there until the ink is dry on President Obama’s signature on a trans-inclusive federal ENDA.

.500

I’ll be nice.  First – a sentiment from The John with which I agree:

I don’t know a single effective political organizer or advocate who thinks that marching on Washington accomplishes anything other than wasting millions of dollars, creating a big donor list for ineffective groups to milk later on, and making the marchers feel like they’ve done something when they haven’t.

There’s talk about having yet another gay March on Washington. Stop it now, please.

Now – one from him that is entirely predictable, and equally laughable.  Regarding DADT:

[M]an it’s going to be ugly out there, very soon.

In short, he’s riding the ‘marriage is numner one, DADT is number two’ wave…

over the hypocrisy cliff.

Trans people not only have no clue as to the history of our own place in the LGB(T) movement but, additionally, cannot possibly have any clue as to whether trans-inclusion is politically possible and cannot legitimately question what certain elected officials say is politically possible at any particular point in time.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut……………..

When it comes to issues that they want dealt with now – RIGHT NOW! – non-trans gays have the absolute right to question what people who actually hold elective office say is politically possible at any particular point in time.

Send ‘Thank You’ Notes to Each and Every Person Who Has Ever Touted the ‘Incremental Progress’ Lie

From the Concord Monitor:

Backers of legal protections for transgender people mounted an all-out campaign for widening New Hampshire’s anti-discrimination laws yesterday, holding a press conference to present personal cases, turning out en masse for a Senate hearing on the bill and excoriating opponents who weeks ago dubbed the measure the “bathroom bill.”

But their late push appeared to fall short: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously, 5-0, to recommend killing the bill, which would forbid landlords, employers and others from discriminating against transgender individuals.

That this ever could have happened in a state where non-trans gays and lesbians have appropriated non-discrimination and quasi-marital rights for themselves is sick.

That its happening in 2009 is ten steps on the wrong side of too-fucked-up-for-words.

This is what we have to show for the decades-long lie of ‘incremental progress.’ 

There is no such thing as ‘incremental progress’ because the parameters never stay the same as when gays and lesbians obtain the special right to discriminate against trans people.  The pushers of ‘incremental progress’ would have you believe that everything gets better, if gradually.

Conveniently, they always forget to mention what they’ve done to alter the parameters negatively.

Every Transsexual Empire copycat – whether in the form of a dissertation or just a comment on a website – adds to the false ‘right’ of non-trans lesbians (and gays and their straight enablers) to define who we are and where belong,  And, of course, we cannot ever possibly belong in a law manufactured for the homosexually pure. 

Every Wisconsin 1982 copycat adds to the legitimacy of altering America’s landscape – bit by bit- to make trans people less acceptable than the homosexually pure.

Every sneer by Barney Frank and every ounce of apologia therefor continues to aid him and his transphobic ilk in shifting America’s bathroom gaze away from gay men and toward transsexual women.

And all of that leads to a 5-0 vote against the people most in need of civil rights protections in a state where a class of people who already has the special right to discriminate against those most in need of civil rights protections is about to succeed with same-sex marriage.

Thank you, Janice Raymond.

Thank you, Barney Frank.

Thank you, Human Rights Campign.

Thank you, Norah Vincent.

Thank each and every one of you who have manufactured legitimacy for yourselves by demonizing people who had the temerity to gain a little bit of legitimacy a little bit before you managed to.

You’re gay.

Are you happy?

If you are, then ask yourselves how and why you’re able to be that way and to say so in 2009.

And think about the cost of it all.

Has it been worth it?

No – don’t bother answering. 

I know what your answer is.

How much do you want to bet that it isn’t the same as mine?