But Not on ENDA?

The John praising Russ Feingold (who voted against the defense bill that contained the trans-inclusive hate crime provision because of the war spending aspect of it) for being willing to have no healthcare reform at all:

Sen. Feingold: No public option is a “strong reason” not to support health care reform bill

OK – that’s just the title of the piece.

Here’s the first line – and the praise:

If you’re not willing to walk away from a negotiation, then you will get played every time.

So…

Who does The John feel got played in the ENDA debacle in 2007?

Enquiring minds want to know.

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.

Rich New York Marriage-Derangement-Syndrome-Addled Gays Bribe Their Way Ahead of Basic Human Rights for Trans People

Queer Today doesn’t use the word ‘bribe’ [UPDATED 9/11/09, 7:33 CDT: Now the word 'bribe' is being used] …

Reliable sources have revealed exclusively to QueerToday.com that gay elites have struck a deal with Republican lawmakers to allow a vote to be taken on gay marriage as soon as next Friday in New York in return for backing for their re-election campaigns.

While these Republicans will not vote for marriage due to fear of repercussion from their constituents, they have agreed not to block the vote.

Wealthy gays have committed to donate tens of thousands of dollars to New York Republicans who may support war, be against reproductive choice, be against immigrants rights, and be against health care reform.

How nice of them.

But, then again, Queer Today also didn’t bother pointing out who is actually getting screwed by this latest act of obnoxious gay marriage greed.

How nice of Queer Today.

Who are these “Wealthy gays”?

I want names.

The World of The John: The Only Thing That ‘Incremental Progress’ Should Apply to is Trans Employment Anti-Discrimination Law

All who can be honest with themselves should acknowledge seeing this one coming.

The John on The Healthcare Insanity:

Obama is leaning towards dropping the public option, even though it remains popular in the polls.

Then there’s this:

Sources expect the president to emphasize the message: If Congress passes something now, it will serve as a foundation to pass further reform in the future.

Yes, better luck next time. And when exactly will that future be? The next time we win control of the White House, and both houses of Congress, while the Republicans have been absolutely decimated after having destroyed the economy and the military, and our president has a 70% approval rating that he refuses to use?

It’s rather amazing that President Obama is now suggesting that we should wait until next time, when he hasn’t even tried this time yet. They are going to split the baby in half on every issue for the rest of their presidency, and then tell the folks they betrayed to take it or leave it, because at least it’s better than the Republicans would have done.

Hmmmmmmm….

I seem to recall no problem whatsoever in The John land regarding splitting a certain legislative baby in half and having those who were betrayed stuck with even less than ”take it or leave it.”  In 2007, there was no option to take it.  We were forced to take it.  Our only option was to squeal or not to squeal while it was happening.

I remember a time when Democrats aspired to do good, rather than simply aspiring to be better than the Worst Republican President Ever.

I remember a time when The John should have said that – and it was just about two years ago.

Of course, we’re not even to the real irony yet.

If there was anything that The John – or anyone – should be willing to accept ‘incremental progress’ on, its healthcare.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I think he and I are actually on the same page with respect to abject disappointment over the performance of the Darling Dems on healthcare.

However…

If Obama and the Dem Weaselship cave to their Corporatist overlords, the result will indeed by shitty – but it will be shitty across the board.  No – I’m not asseriting that no one will be worse off as a result of any Rahm-promise; I’m assuming a lot of people will be.

But in terms of classes of people affected, it will not be arbitrarily confined to a class.

There will be no hirdwiring into law of crap such as:  ’no decent option for insurance for women’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for Jews’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for those of Asian ancestry’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for gays’ or ‘no decent option for insurance for transsexuals.’

In short, whether the ‘no decent option for insurance’ angel arrives at your door will be the same crapshoot that it is now.

Its a form of ‘incremental progress’ that is incrementally bad for everyone.  There’s always the potential that a minor illness will destroy you financially – but there’s no guarantee that it will happen.

You know…

Like it is now regarding federal anti-discrimination protection.  If you’re gay or trans, there’s always the potential that a new supervisor where you work will decide to rid the jobsite of queers, potentially destroying you professionally and financially – but there’s no guarantee that it will happen.

But under the ENDA that The John was willing to settle for two years ago, if you’re gay or trans, there would still always the potential that a new supervisor where you work might decide to rid the jobsite of queers, which potentially could destroy you professionally and financially – and there would be no guarantee that it would happen, but if you were gay there would be a guarantee that, if it was to happen, you would be able to fight back in court…

and if you were transsexual there would be a guarantee that, if it was to happen, you would not be able to fight back in court.

The John’s shitty 2007 ENDA would not have been shitty across the board – it would have been shitty for one (de-)enumerated class of people.

‘Incremental progress’ is fine and dandy for The John when he knows that it will not negatively affect him.

But, with healthcare, there’s always a chance that the lie that is ’incremental progress’ will be laid bare and exposed for all the world to see on his doorstep.

And that, apparently, just will not do for The John.

Marriage Derangement Syndrome Mutates

From Gay City News – no, really, this is not from The Onion; its from Gay City News:

The attorney representing two gay men who sued in state court and now in federal court in southern California to win the right to marry hopes the case will spawn a political movement that will result in residents there voting by ballot initiative to divide the state in two.

“We’re hoping to use the case in court as a springboard to get a proposition on the ballot that will break up California into two states,” said Richard C. Gilbert, a partner at Gilbert & Marlowe, a law firm with two offices in California. “We think if we can get this proposition on the ballot, we think we’ll win.”

Gilbert said the ideal result would be that all the counties north of Los Angeles would become New California while the southern counties would remain California.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I’m not from California and I’ve never lived there – and you don’t have to be either to have heard people from California speak of how NoCal and SoCal at times seem like two different states.

But think about what Gilbert is up to.

First: using a gay marriage case as a springboard to transforming that perception of duality into legal reality.

Second: Someone needs to find out where this character was during the ENDA fiasco two years ago.  And what about his clients – the ones whose Marriage Derangement Syndrome he is clearly exploiting?  Were they living in reality?  Or were they Aravosisists? 

You know – an Aravosisist…

One of those life forms who railed and wailed and whines and huffed and puffed and snorted and contorted about how standing firm for trans-inclusion would sacrifice the rights of so many (no numnbers here; it often changed in the Aravosisist rants) millions of fine, upstanding – fine and upstanding because they aren’t trans – gays.

Well what would bifurcating California sacrifice?

In and of itself, nothing.

But how many reality-based individuals believe that things like gay rights laws (much less trans-inclusive ones) and a law recognizing the reality of transsexualism would be long for a world state whose political axis would consist of San Diego, Orange County, Fresno and Bakersfield? 

But, I guess the existing political and economic rights of gays and trans people in SoCal are a regrettable but necessary potential sacrifice in order for the Marriage Derangement Syndrome sufferers of NoCal to be able to scratch their itch.

You know…

The way that transsexual recognition rights have been sacrificable everywhere?

It Was – And It Is

Queer Channel Media’s Kevin Naff whines:

AFTER MORE THAN a decade of analysis, study and debate over how the nation got stuck with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” former President Bill Clinton explained it all last week.

It’s our fault.

It was – and it is.  And, in Fox-esque self-contradictory fashion, he admits as much – but apparently there’s too much Queerepublican Express being smoked over at QCM and he can’t (or won’t) see how.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force were criticized in 1993 for focusing their lobbying efforts on a broad federal civil rights bill, rather than on the gays-in-the-military fight that was already raging.

“They expected the White House to take care of the military thing,” one House staffer told the Blade in January 1993. “They thought Clinton would issue his order and it would sail through with little or no difficulty.”

That proved wishful thinking, of course, and Clinton caved to a so-called compromise in a blow to the concept of civilian leadership of the military.

Well – if these organizations ‘represented’ GLBs (T’s? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!) and, in dropping what, in Naff’s view, was the only ball that counted, then it is GLBs’ fault.

Is Bill Clinton a dishonest, sex-addicted scumbag? 

Of course. 

But the conservative gay men who have (mis)appropriated for themselves the ability to control ‘the message’ at most of the gay papers in America would have you believe that the logical response to that is to become a Republican – and vote for dishonest, sex-addicted christofascist scumbags.

The simple fact of the DADT fiasco is this: No one was honest enough with themselves or the GLB populace in 1993 (and, in reality, no one is now) to acknowledge how entrenched the homophobia was (and is) in the military – and no one in the gay rights industry was (or is) honest enough with themselves or the GLBT populace to acknowledge the following mathematical facts: (1) not all GLBs want to serve in the military; (2) even many who might want to cannot do so for reasons unrelated to sexual orientation; (3), the undeniable realities of (1) and (2) mandate the conclusion that infinitely more people will benefit from ENDA than from allowing gays in the military; and (4) forcing the issue of gays in the military in 1993 screwed the ‘gay civil rights bill’ pooch for the 1993-94 congressional session, the last time that there was any possibility of a gay rights bill gettng through Congress to a president that would sign it.

And I won’t even mention marriage, the other barrel of Naff’s whine.

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?

Their Moment, Their March, Their New Opportunity to Suck More Money Out of Real Communities, Their New Venue to Continue Their Erasure of Substantive Trans Issues

Forgive me if this post is messy.  Its covered in vomit.

Queer Channel Media has provided Bruce Bastian a spot to con people into wasting time, energy and money on the only thing I can currently think of that is even more ill-advised than the Olson-Boies gay mariage case in California:  a national gay rights march in DC this October.

Please note that I referred to it as a gay rights march – which is what the last one was (well, in addition to fraud on the hoof; where did all the money go, again?) despite perfunctory use of ‘T’.

Our coming together in Washington is a step

Yep – a step not just on the necks of trans people but on any real effort at real progress (at least, real progress of anything other than the amount of money in the accounts of the corporate slugs who doubtlessly are salivating over this opportunity to have a weekend chock full o’ access to a couple of hundred thousand meth-addled queers who, even sober, are too stupid to call a waste a waste but, fueled by D.C. Tina will open their pockets along with their zippers and give their money to any flashy corporate slag who momentarily attaches a rainbow to its criminal enterprise logo.)

Oh…

And Bruce Bastian?

Bruce Bastian was chair and co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation and serves on the board of directors of the Human Rights Campaign.

Gee – one of the conservators of the Wal-Mart of gay organizations thinks its a good idea to suck millions of dollars out of local communities when local communities need them the most.

You folks out there do realize that we can forget about ENDA until at least 2025, don’t you?

If its Queer Channel Media, ‘Success’ Means ‘Gay Marriage’ and Only ‘Gay Marriage’

Oh yes, there’s a ‘letter‘ that questions Marriage Derangement Syndrome, but Peter Rosenstein in Queer Channel Media:

AS WE ADVANCE the rights of the LGBT community, we need to remember that the definition of success is often a state-by-state affair.

In D.C., we are celebrating recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. In Iowa, they are celebrating the ability to perform same-sex marriages. In Maine, while they celebrate the ability to perform same-sex marriages, the opposition has already collected enough signatures to put that up to a vote of the people. In D.C., a court agreed that under our laws the rights of a protected minority (which the LGBT community is) couldn’t be put up to a vote of the majority. In California, the court upheld Prop 8.

D.C., Iowa, Maine and California?  They all do indeed see trans people as being equal to those in the three privilege-addled hegemony letters.  

But that aspect of those states is not what he’s talking about there.

He’s talking about gay marriage.

The inclusion of ‘T’ in a discussion of gay marriage is backdoor bigotry that serves no purpose than ammunition to use to suck transsexuals down whenever gay marriage law implodes – like it did in California and likely will in Maine and even D.C.

In every state we are at different stages in fighting for our rights. I was reminded of that recently in Rehoboth Beach, Del. I now have a home there but have been vacationing there for more than 25 years. When I first went, it was perfectly legal to shout obscenities at gays and lesbians walking down the street and it was a regular occurrence. Then an organization called CAMP was formed to fight for our rights.

CAMP Rehoboth now conducts diversity training each year for the Rehoboth police department. Two weeks ago, after an 11-year struggle, CAMP and a team of advocates celebrated the passage of a bill adding sexual orientation to those classes that can’t be discriminated against in Delaware. I was brought to tears when Gov. Jack Markell came to Rehoboth Beach and signed this legislation. Markell, who I am fortunate to know, is a champion of equal rights for all people. He clearly understood what it would mean to sign this bill in Rehoboth Beach in front of 200 people whose rights are now being protected in some small measure in Delaware. Everyone there knew this was only a first step, but after an 11-year struggle it was time to take a moment to celebrate.

When is “our” not as collective as it seems? 

When it is pecked with privilege.

If Markell is indeed a “champion of equal rights for all people,” then he would have vetoed that unadulterated piece of bigoted Delaware garbage, consecrating in the state’s statutory law the greed, privilege and transphobia that is the lifeblood of the ‘A-gays.’  That statute doesn’t use the following words:

We gays and lesbians know that the tranny freaks aren’t as good as us and now we’ve got the law to prove it.  Boo yah!

but it might as well.

Ditto for Rosenstein’s Queer Channel Media op-ed.