HRC Now More Trans-Free Than Ever

November 27, 2007

From Queer Channel Media:

Two transgender members of the Human Rights Campaign quit Tuesday, saying the group’s support of an employment nondiscrimination bill that excluded transgender workers put them “in an untenable position.”

Jamison Green and Donna Rose’s resignations from the Human Rights Campaign’s business council are effective immediately, according to a joint letter.

“Considering recent broken promises, the lack of credibility that HRC has with the transgender community at large, and HRC’s apparent lack of commitment to healing the breach it has caused, we find it impossible to maintain an effective working relationship with the organization,” they said.

Ya think?

Autumn Sandeen at Pam’s House Blend has the full text of the resignation letter as well as some thoughts of her own – and, not surprisingly, there are some comments too.  From Zoe:

“On November 8, the day after the ENDA vote in the House of Representatives, we requested an opportunity to meet personally with HRC President Joe Solmonese to share our concerns and to discuss HRC’s strategy for addressing recent legislative shortcomings before making a decision to stay or go. As the only transgender representatives on the Business Council our community expects us to have some influence, or at least to receive the courtesy of a consultation. Almost 3 weeks have passed since that request and we have heard nothing in response. This lack of response speaks volumes, so we feel compelled to take this stand today.”

You don’t do that to equals. You certainly don’t do that to the people who might have a chance of defusing the situation, not unless they’re just supposed to be “token n… trannies”. This must be heartbreaking for them, walking away from the one part of the HRC that was actually doing some good, and that they were making a real contribution to, a big part of their lives. But the cost of remaining was too high.

I’m still looking for the hue and cry from the community over something else that is not done to equals: freezing us out of of any real opportunity for substantive employment at the Scampaign.  In all candor, I’ve never understood why anyone – much less the still-startling-to-me numbers of trans people who drank the purple-n-yellow kool-aid – would believe than an organization that refuses to treat us as equals in their own hiring practices could ever be trusted to lobby or advocate in any way for any form of civil rights for trans people.


If the Republicans Pull it Out in 2008, Perhaps You’ll Want to Thank This

November 27, 2007

Granted, this is from BP (that’s Baptist Press, not British Petroleum), but it seems pretty straightforward:

The same legal group that successfully sued for legalized “gay marriage” in Massachusetts now wants the federal government to recognize those relationships.

As reported by The Boston Globe, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) is considering either filing a lawsuit or lobbying Congress to strike down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the government from recognizing “gay marriage.” If that section is axed, then same-sex couples in Massachusetts will receive the federal legal benefits of marriage.

Trans-exclusion has been consecrated at the federal level – giving the gay marriage addicts of the northeast a green light to conveniently forget to expend any legitimate effort on rectifying any of the gay-only atrocities in New England.  So, should it be any surprise that the same people who poked the sleeping dog sufficiently hard to get dozens of state anti-gay marriage laws and amendments enacted and to get the coke-snorting, draft-dodging treasonous rich brat re-‘elected’ in 2004 are so dazed and confused by their own self-importance and personal greed that they’re setting a course for the same thing to happen in 2008 – a year that, should Americans vote their true consciences and pocketbooks instead of their manufactured homo-fears, Democrats shold take the White House and 80% of both houses of Congress?

Currently, though, GLAD says it is not trying to overturn the section of DOMA that gives states the option of not recognizing another state’s “gay marriage”

So? 

Basic economic justice for trans people?  Sorry…NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!  We must obey the Incremental Progress Ghods!

Gay marriage?  Everything must take a back seat – no matter how much damage that we all know will result (and has already resulted) from letting gay marriage get behind the wheel. 


Condolences

November 27, 2007

My dear friend Gwen Smith and her spouse Bon lost a member of their family yesterday – a wonderful cat named Idgie.

 Idgie D. Cat

So long, Idgie.  Say hi to Tucker, Tabby and Mr. Red for me.


The Pimps O’ So-Called Incrementalism Buy Another Op-Ed

November 27, 2007

This time it’s the Boston Globe.

[T]he bill that passed the House Nov. 7 received scant support from the gay-rights lobby. Most such organizations wanted a bill that also forbids discrimination against transgendered people. These protections, to be sure, would be helpful to those who do not identify with their biological sex. Yet criticism of the bill in its current form misses the point. Politics is an incremental art. The passage in one house of Congress – for the first time – is a milestone. It is a particular triumph for Frank, a gay man who has been pushing for such legislation for decades.

Gee…a paper from a state that has a law that allows gays to discriminate against trans people is more than okay with that framework being inflicted on the whole country?  Who’da thunk it?

There is no ‘incrementalism.’

It is transphobic gay elitism.

Period.


What’s in the Spin Cycle Today at the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool du Transphobique?

November 26, 2007

For various reasons I don’t think I’ve had occasion to re-post any of Phyllis Frye’s ‘Phyllabusters’ on the ENDA fiasco.  However, I’ll make an exception here.  This arrived in my e-mail a few hours ago.

Phyllabuster: Intercepted spin from National HRC to cover it’s backside

    The following was copied to me. 

    It is being sent to the HRC Board of Governors.

    It is spin from the National HRC which is trying to cover it’s backside for dividing the community over ENDA.

    …   

    National HRC HAS NO SHAME and continues trying to divide the community.

If you thought that the Elizarudybeth I photoshoppy thing spoke for itself, try this:

From: Tiffany Dean [mailto:tiffany.dean@hrc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: ENDA Clarification

This message is going to the HRC Board of Governors

Good afternoon,

The attached talking points address the question whether the current ENDA does harm to the transgender community, which we were requested to provide. We hope you find this document informative and useful.

Also, Janis and Steve have asked for you to feel more than welcome to pass along other requests for specific information around this issue as we strive to keep you informed.

At this time, I would also like to inform you that the HRC office will close tomorrow at noon and reopen after the holiday weekend on Monday, November 26.

Have a wonderful and safe Thanksgiving weekend!

Tiffany Dean

Board Relations Manager

Human Rights Campaign

1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20036

202-572-8915- Office

202-285-5182 – Cell

202-293-0633 – Fax

www.hrc.org

Issue

Some members have expressed concern that passing a non-inclusive ENDA will jeopardize federal precedent providing a degree of protection to transgender people under Title VII.

Short answer

It is exceptionally unlikely that a court would construe passing a non-inclusive ENDA as a reason to undermine these protections.

Analysis:

      I. Courts have already explicitly determined that Title VII does not provide protections based upon gender identity

Unfortunately, federal case law almost uniformly rejects claims that existing civil rights laws such as Title VII provide protections based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.  These clear pronouncements from the courts are one reason that ENDA is so necessary.

Certain courts have concluded that although Title VII was not intended to include transgender people as a protected class, a transgender person can nonetheless, under certain circumstances, be successful under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a case that prohibits employers from discriminating based upon sex stereotypes. In Price Waterhouse, the Supreme Court concluded that the employer had discriminated based upon sex when it had failed to promote a woman because she did not dress femininely enough or wear makeup and was considered too aggressive for a woman. 

Transgender individuals have had a degree of success under Price Waterhouse, but only when they can prove that the discrimination was because they failed to conform to a stereotype—NOT because they were transgender per se

Title VII is not currently understood to be transgender-inclusive, but rather to protect certain transgender people when they can prove that they were subjected to unlawful sex stereotyping. The case law simply stands for the proposition that the mere fact of being transgender does not mean that a motion to dismiss will be granted. 

         II. Congress has made clear its intent not to undermine existing case law

The ENDA Committee Report makes clear that 3685 does not supersede Price Waterhouse with regard to sex stereotyping. Although courts may draw upon a variety of sources when determining congressional intent, a Committee Report would have far more weight than the decision to pass one bill rather than the other.  The relevant excerpt appears below:

 

Section 15: Preserves provisions in other Federal, state, or local laws that currently provide protection from discrimination. For example, Congress does not intend to overrule, displace, or in any other way affect any U.S. Supreme Court or other federal court opinion that has interpreted Title VII in such a way that protects individuals who are discriminated against because they do not conform to sex or gender stereotypes. See, e.g., Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (female plaintiff brought successful Title VII claim after she was denied partnership in an accounting firm because she did not conform to female sex stereotype); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001) (male plaintiff brought successful Title VII claim after he was subjected to a hostile work environment because he failed to conform to a male stereotype).

       III.   The existing protections come from Supreme Court case law, not from a statute

As set forth above, the favorable case law comes from a Supreme Court case. Price Waterhouse has already analyzed and applied Title VII to sex stereotyping cases involving transgender people. Unless a court was predisposed to dispense with any claim by transgender people, it would not look to the existence of a non-inclusive ENDA as a means of interpreting Congress’ intent in enacting Title VII. Rather, it would examine the relationship, if any, to the Price Waterhouse decision. The Committee Report makes clear that Price Waterhouse remains unaffected. 

     IV.   Public debate on ENDA has already advanced the proposition that Title VII is inadequate

In the past several congresses, our civil rights coalition has promoted ENDA because it is clear that existing federal law does not protect GLBT people from employment discrimination. Finally in the 110th Congress, an inclusive bill was introduced. HRC’s briefing materials on ENDA answer the question “why is ENDA necessary” as follows:

ENDA is necessary because GLBT people face serious discrimination in employment, including being fired from a job, being denied a promotion, and experiencing harassment on the job. There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. As a result, it is currently legal to fire someone solely on the basis of their sexual orientation in 31 states, and in 39 states to do so based on gender identity.*

Similarly, all supporters of ENDA, including HRC, publicly (and accurately) stated that only an explicitly inclusive ENDA such as H.R. 2015 would provide equal protections for the transgender community. Thus there was never a realistic litigation position that a non-inclusive ENDA might be creatively utilized to cover transgender discrimination. Such a theory might have been harmed by rejection of an inclusive ENDA in favor of a non-inclusive one, but it was never considered a viable possibility—which is why advocates have always deemed an explicitly inclusive ENDA to be necessary.

Introducing and debating an inclusive ENDA came with its own risks, namely expressing Congress’ belief that existing law does not protect transgender people. It was a risk that we all agree had to be taken. But in fact, in the course of re-drafting ENDA to include gender identity, litigators and advocates all agreed that introducing an inclusive bill could realistically threaten the remaining chances that they had under Title VII.  Passing a non-inclusive bill, on the other hand, simply indicates that Congress sees sexual orientation and gender identity as two distinct issues.

         V.Courts are unlikely to utilize legislative history to undermine Price Waterhouse protections for transgender people.

As set forth below, legislative history regarding the non-inclusive bill is highly unlikely to influence future interpretations of ENDA in a way that limits transgender protections.

The criticism being addressed here misperceives the way that courts utilize legislative history. First, when a court interprets the law, it looks immediately to the law’s plain language. The plain language of 3685 covers actual or perceived sexual orientation, defined as homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality. In the absence of ambiguity—and ENDA is not ambiguous—the Court’s inquiry is over.

Second, if an ambiguity were found, before conducting an archaeological expedition into amendments (such as the Baldwin Amendment) that were introduced and withdrawn without a vote, a court would look at the official statements of congressional intent. In this case, the Committee Report makes clear that 3685 does not supersede Price Waterhouse with regard to gender stereotyping.

Finally, ample case law exists to support the proposition that Congress’ failure to vote to expand a specific law does not prove Congressional intent to limit the law. For example, various industries have unsuccessfully asserted that they were not subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act because Congress had failed to enact bills specifically including them. The courts determined that there are numerous reasons why Congress would fail to act. Courts would be unlikely to draw the conclusion that because Congress enacted a non-inclusive ENDA, it actually intended to roll back protections under Title VII. A more likely and accurate conclusion was that Congress simply did not intend to expand protections at this time.

In legislative history, inaction is far less significant than action. In other words, courts accord less significance to failure to vote on an issue than affirmatively voting. Thus, the more harmful vote that could take place on ENDA would be a vote against explicit transgender protections. This would not only set a political benchmark that members of Congress will find difficult to overcome, but could even create avenues for miserly interpretations of sexual orientation non-discrimination laws.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the National Employment Lawyers Association has signed on to a coalition letter in support of a floor vote on 3685. This litigation group does not take the position that this vote would compromise their litigation positions once a fully-inclusive ENDA becomes law.

        VI. Concerns about coverage for GLB people

Although this memorandum should not be construed to mean that HRC is not committed to pursuing a transgender non-discrimination law, it is worthwhile to address claims set forth by some advocates that a non-inclusive ENDA will not provide sufficient employment protections for GLB Americans. This claim is supported neither by case law nor facts on the ground. As the prominent professor Dale Carpenter has publicly explained, proponents of this view have been unable to produce a single case in support of it. Although reasonable minds can differ regarding the strategy surrounding our progress toward ENDA, it is clear that the legal argument is untenable. 

Conclusion:

  • Passage of a non-inclusive ENDA would not affect the limited protections that transgender people have won under Title VII.
  • Supporters of ENDA know that the law is necessary precisely because protections under existing federal law are exceptionally limited.
  • Carefully crafted legislative history shows that the non-inclusive bill is not intended to undermine the existing case law that provides some protection.
  • Before leadership moved toward a non-inclusive bill, there was ample public discussion of the fact that federal law simply did not cover anti-transgender discrimination.
  • An unsuccessful vote on an inclusive ENDA would also be more likely to do harm than passage of a non-inclusive ENDA without a vote on transgender protections.
  • The protections won through litigation under Price Waterhouse are not affected by passing a non-inclusive ENDA because a court’s inquiry would no longer be into Congressional intention around Title VII—a matter that is long-since settled. It would still be into whether the facts of an individual case show that the employer subjected the transgender individual to unlawful sex stereotyping.

Something tells me that more time, energy and effort went into this spin crib sheet than the Human Right Scampaign has, in its entire history, put into ‘educating’ Congress to do anything different than the wet dream that Barney Frank orchestrated earlier this month.

I will say this about the Scampaign – just when you think they’ve gone as far as they can with their special brand of deception, they prove that they can refine it even further.

Of course, some of it is re-tread:

It is exceptionally unlikely that a court would construe passing a non-inclusive ENDA as a reason to undermine these protections.

For this, I refer you to my Texas Triangle column of Nov. 5, 1999:

The Calculus of Crap (Or: One More Reason to Hate HRC)

How many reasons is it up to now?


Frank Kameny: Tom Brokaw is Bad, But Trickle-Down Incremento-Revisionism Is Good

November 26, 2007

Bloggernista has the entire text (the substance of which I’ll be including below) of a letter from Frank Kameny to, inter alia, Tom Brokaw – a letter critical of Brokaw’s most recent book, about the generation that followed the ‘greatest generation’ that Brokaw celebrated in a previous work.  According to Bloggernista:

In his book, which probably should be called Boom! Voices of the Absolutely Not Gay Sixties, Brokaw white washes the social movements of the Sixties of any hint of gayness.

Brokaw ignores the amazing work of Kameny, Harry Hay, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. He fails to include the sexual orientations of crucial leaders in other political movements such as Black activist Bayard Rustin who was a key figure in the organizing of the 1963 March on Washington.

Thank God for Frank. He comes to the rescue and schools Brokaw in some of the key gay events and activists in American gay history….

Can you guess where the wheels come off of this protestation?

Now, I have not read Brokaw’s book; in fact, I first heard about it this morning when he was plugging it on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.  Based solely on that appearance, my interest in the book was indeed piqued (and positively; I’m going to see if I can find a copy this afternoon.)  Kameny (who I assume has seen the book) wasn’t willing to be charitable in any way.

Dear Mr. Brokaw and Mmes. Centrello and Medina:

As a long-time gay activist, who initiated gay activism and militancy at the very start of “your” Sixties, in 1961; coined the slogan “Gay is Good” in 1968; and is viewed by many as one of the “Founding Fathers” of the Gay Movement, I write with no little indignation at the total absence of any slightest allusion to the gay movement for civil equality in your book “Boom! Voices of the Sixties”. Your book simply deletes the momentous events of that decade which led to the vastly altered and improved status of gays in our culture today. This change would have been inconceivable at the start of the Sixties and would not have occurred at all without the events of that decade totally and utterly ignored by you. Mr. Brokaw, you have “de-gayed” the entire decade. “Voices of the Sixties”??? One does not hear even one single gay voice in your book. The silence is complete and deafening.

As a gay combat veteran of World War II, and therefore a member of the “Greatest Generation”, I find myself and my fellow gays as absent from your narration as if we did not and do not exist. We find Boom! Boom!! Boom!!! in your book about all the multitudinous issues and the vast cultural changes of that era. But not a single “Boom”, only dead silence, about gays, homosexuality, and the Gay Movement.

The development of every other possible, conceivable issue and cause which came to the forefront in that period is at least mentioned, and is usually catalogued: race; sex and gender; enthnicity; the environment; and others, on and on and on — except only gays.

In 1965, we commenced bringing gays and our issues “out of the closet” with our then-daring picketing demonstrations at the White House and other government sites, and our annual 4th of July demonstrations at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The Smithsonian Institution displayed these original pickets last month, in the same exhibition as the desk where Thomas Jefferson drafted The Declaration of Independence. The name of the Smithsonian’s exhibition? “Treasures of American History”. In your book: No Boom; only silence.

About 1963, a decade-long effort commenced to reverse the psychiatric categorization of gays as mentally or emotionally ill, concluding in 1973 with a mass “cure” of all of us by the American PsychiatricAssociation. No boom in your book; only your silence.

The most momentous single Gay Movement event occurred at the end of June, 1969, when the “Stonewall Rebellion” in New York, almost overnight (actually it took three days) converted what had been a tiny, struggling gay movement into the vast grass-roots movement which it now is. We had five or six gay organizations in the entire country in 1961; fifty to sixty in 1969; by the time of the first Gay Pride march, in New York one year later in 1970, we had 1500, and 2500 by 1971 when counting stopped. If ever there was Boom, this was it. In your book, no Boom, only your silence.

About 1972, Elaine Noble was elected to the Massachusetts state House of Representatives as the first elected openly gay public official. I had run here in Washington, DC, the previous year for election to Congress as the first openly gay candidate for any federal office. Harvey Milk was elected to the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. No boom in your book; only your silence.

Mr. Brokaw, you deal with the histories of countless individuals. Where are the gays of that era: Barbara Gittings; Jack Nichols; Harry Hay; Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons; Randolfe Wicker; Harvey Milk; numerous others? No booms in your book; only silence and heterosexuals.

Starting in 1961 a long line of court cases attacked the long-standing U.S. Civil Service Gay Ban (fully as absolute and as virulent as the current Military Gay ban, which actually goes back some 70 years and was also fought in the 60s) with final success in 1975 when the ban on employment of gays by the federal government was rescinded. In your book, no boom; only your silence.

The assault on the anti-sodomy laws, which made at least technical criminals of all gays (and most non-gays for that matter, although never used against them) and which was the excuse for an on-going terror campaign against the gay community through arrests the country over, began in 1961 and proceeded through the 60s and onward. In your book, no boom; only your silence.

In 1972, following up on Stonewall, the first anti-discrimination law protective of gays was enacted in East Lansing, Michigan, followed by the much more comprehensive one in D.C. in 1973, starting a trend which now encompasses some twenty states, countless counties and cities, and has now reached Congress in ENDA. In your book, no boom; only your silence.

The Sixties were a period of unprecedented rapid social and cultural upheaval and change. We gays were very much a part of all that. A reader of your book would never have the slightest notion of any of that. In your book, no boom; only your silence.

At the start of the Sixties gays were completely invisible. By the end, and especially after Stonewall, we were seen everywhere: in entertainment, education, religion, politics, business, elsewhere and everywhere. In BOOM our invisibility remains total.

The only allusions to us, in your entire book are the most shallow, superficial, brief references in connection with sundry heterosexuals. Where are the gay spokespeople? We are certainly there to speak for ourselves. But in your book, only silence.

Mr. Brokaw, I could go on, but this should be sufficient to make my point. The whole thing is deeply insulting. As I said, you have de-gayed an entire generation. For shame, for shame, for shame. You owe an abject public apology to the entire gay community. I demand it; we expect it.

Gay is Good. You are not.

Sincerely,

Franklin E. Kameny, Ph.D.

Where are the trans people and trans-specific events that Kameny could – and should – have mixed in?  Probably the same place that the true history of the GLBT rights movement is – covered up by an agenda.

What could Kammeny have included to make the complaint inclusive – and legitimate?

I could mention the 1966 Compton’s Cafeteria riot (which, in terms of ‘boom’-ness, is probably more truly ‘sixties’ than anything or anyone Kameny mentioned) and I could mention Sylvia Rivera and I could mention the first major city to enact a gay rights ordinance (Minneapolis in 1974) and how it became trans-inclusive 18 months later because trans activists did not bend over and take the non-inclusiveness.

And I will.

And while it would be tempting to say something like ‘Trans is good, Kameny is not’, I will not.  However, I will ask everyone to think about what is missing from Kameny’s ‘protest.’ 


An Xmas Parable From The Future

November 25, 2007

With it being the season for Day of Remembrance – and with every second of our lives from here on being Day of Never Forgetting Just What Sort of  Lying, Thieving Bastards Barney Frank and HRC are – I thought it a good time to re-post my Texas Triangle column from almost eight years ago (Dec. 24, 1999 to be exact.)  A PDF of the edited version that made it to print can be found here

However, I’m re-posting the intended text today – for Messrs. Frank, Solmonese, Aravosis, and their worshippers:

An Xmas Parable From the Future

By Katrina C. Rose

I hate to contribute to millennium madness by doing a column of my own about the meaningless change of the thousands digit that will happen uyoiuyouin jkhldakfh asfljka laslfjh askjfr ulasklgglk jhlkjhsdlfjh….

Oops. Apologies for interrupting Katrina’s end-of-themillennium column. I saw it – it was a good one. In fact, a few of her predictions for the new millennium are dead on target – sadly.

How do I know? Well, I just do. I’ve seen the future. In fact, I’ve been there.

My name is Olivia. Like Katrina, I’m a transsexual female. Like Katrina, I’m a lawyer. In fact, I went to law school with her. Unlike her, I transitioned before I started law school and I was closeted – deep in the woodwork, in fact. We didn’t know each other all that well and I have no idea if she even knew about me being TS.

My grades were far worse than hers but because no one knew I was TS I, unlike Katrina, found a job immediately after graduating.

One day, though, I was outed as having once been male. Everyone smiled and said that they supported me and that what counted was my ability, not what was or was not between my legs.

However, when I got to work the next day, my pass card wouldn’t open the door. I immediately found myself surrounded by a group of men with wardrobe and demeanor that seemingly came straight from the movie Reservior Dogs.

I’d been fired immediately after I left the building the day before. No severance. No nothing – except a letter handed to me by one of the aforementioned Dogs. It was chilling.

It is the opinion of Big High-Paying Law Firm’s legal counsel that Big High-Paying Law Firm is under no obligation, either under federal, state of local law, to employ someone like you – even if you are otherwise the most-qualified person for the job that you are assigned to – and we are currently re-evaluating our past evaluations of you to see whether any of the praise of you was actually justified. We will vigorously defend our right not to employ people like you should you attempt to sue Big High-Paying Law Firm. The words ‘because of sex’ in Title VII have been interpreted as not covering ‘change of sex. Even recently-enacted federal law that forces us to hire sodomites was specifically written so as to not require us to hire men who wear dresses. This lack of inclusion is a definitive statement of public policy that people such as yourself not only can be but should be excluded from the workplace.

I called every other firm in town. No one would even take my calls. I lost my house. I lost my car. I lost everything. Within two months, I was in a homeless shelter.

Then someone there was informed that I used to be male. On Christmas Eve, I was kicked out in the middle of the night after being told that, because of the Religious Liberty Protection Act, faith-based institutions, even those that accept public funding, had no obligation to help, or even to tolerate, “freaks.”

Only one of my relatives would even accept a telephone call from me – and that one kept me on the line only long enough to say that I was a disgusting pervert who was defiling “God’s plan.”

For some reason, it was at this point that I recalled that the Human Rights Campaign had issued a grandiose statement advocating inclusion of transgendered people in a hate crime law.

But where were was the HRC when I really needed them? They were willing to support a law that deals with hate crimes that have already occurred – but were not willing to put us in the law that prevents the most widespread type of hate crime: the economic hate crime of employment discrimination. It’s a hate crime that almost always puts us in the position of being vulnerable to other, more violent, hate crimes.

Violent crimes like the one that killed me. Yes, I’m dead. But, no, I’ll never be the TS equivalent of Matthew Shepard.

With no money, no shelter and no other way to survive, I became a cliché: a sex-worker. My very first customer fucked me and then killed me, saying that god commanded him to dispense with any freak that he might find, but that, because he was doing god’s work, he could get a quickie in the process.

I was immediately carved into little pieces.  The guy then drve up to Fort Worth and, after sneaking into the zoo late at night, fed me to the alligators.

Whenever Giants Stadium is torn down there will be more left of Jimmy Hoffa to find than there is of me.

At this point, I have a question for Elizabeth Birch and Barney Frank: Are you satisfied with this result of this equation: hate crime protection MINUS employment discrimination protection EQUALS me losing my life for ten dollars?