If, by “classy,” one means ‘on par with the aftermath of a Jeff Epperly wet dream.’
The basic, 2011 response to this is incapsulated by what “director_KnoxBoyz” had to say in the comments section:
First a pejorative then you use 2 homosexual icons as your example of Transgender/Gender-Variant expression??? While claiming to support civil rights for all you are showing ignorance even our blatant haters can recognize.
And lets not forget that the one who could technically lay claim to some form of trans as a label – by virtue of having played Queen Elizabeth I in the movie Orlando – had a bit of a racist streak. The one time I saw him in person, here:
at Stages Repertory Theater in Houston in 1998, he riffed on the then-dead-barely-a-year Princess Diana. Granted, I don’t really have any use for royalty, but the line I most remember was that she died while “cavorting with Arabs.”
Lets not forget that the aforementioned Epperly at that point in time had yet to spew out some of his most proto-Crain crap.
Trans people do.
Trans people also remember why then, as well as in 2011, a Massachusetts “trans rights bill” is something that needs focusing on.
There is rampant self-loathing in the transgender movement leadership when it comes to homosexuality — as opposed to the trangender rank-and-file which seems to understand you can be gay and transgender.
Lesbian and gay concerns are getting lost in the scramble.
Lesbian and gay concerns were sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo lost.
That would explain why there’s no chance whatsoever that Massachusetts will ever get a gay rights law, much less gay marriage….
lets try this again. That actually would explain how, in 1989, gays and lesbians ramrodded a bill through the Massachusetts Legislature that insulated themselves from discrimination – even though eight years earlier, while such gay(-only) rights bills were being laughed at, the legislature had statutorily recognized the reality of transsexualism.
You won’t find that in Bay Windows‘ “transgender-focused issue.” Or, if it is there, I simply haven’t found it yet – but I’m not holding my breath. History, for gay papers, is pretty much limited to:
- Re-hashing Stonewall into oblivion;
- Onionskin-thin analyses ‘proving’ that a man here or a woman there or, hell, pretty much anyone and everyone who died more than 50 years ago, was gay;
- Pretending that 1970s gays and lesbians had nothing to do with the fact that it appears to the untrained eye as though trans-everything didn’t exist until 1994; and
- An absolute ban not only on substantive, comparative analysis of the development of positive trans (usually transsexual, but sometimes broader) law alongside (and in many instances in spite of) the progression and/or digression of gay law, but also on explanations of the reality of what passing gay-only laws in a jurisdiction did to trans people. at both the macro and micro level.
Hell, this Bay Windows “transgender-focused issue” even includes a first-person account of a well-educated trans woman’s experience with employment discrimination in Massachusetts:
I graduated [from MIT] in 1976 with a degree in electrical engineering. After graduating, I enjoyed 15 years of engineering success, the last five as a manager, while keeping my gender issues separate and private. My successes included a patented design that gave Bose a significant advantage over competitors; the first successful electronic telephone ringer transducer; and a PC plug-in card that became a telephony industry standard for 10 years. As you probably know, 10 years is a long time in the PC industry.
Then, in 1993, I transitioned to living as a woman. I set out to do so in the best way possible.
But my status on the job was immediately reduced.
So I began interviewing for other jobs. At the first six interviews, when they asked me for references, I mentioned that my references might refer to me as John, since that’s how they had known me. I received no call-backs from any of these interviews. Next interview, when it came to references, I made no mention of any changes. I got that job, and went to work for Bell Labs in Lawrence. I found myself being invited to high-level strategic meetings with the division director and department heads. We were discussing the next generation of transmission system, design and deployment. They gave me an award for solving a design problem that had been holding up development. Then the director found out that I had been born male. I was never invited to another management-level meeting. Instead I was relegated to the lowest levels of design.
That’s how it went for the next 10 years. I continued to do excellent work. For one company I designed two-thirds of the hardware for the first successful Internet-based telephone system. That company, NBX, was sold for $600 million. But despite my continued technical success, I was never again considered for any kind of management role. My career turned demoralizing. I was socially snubbed, hidden away like some kind of embarrassment. It’s hard to maintain enthusiasm for a job in that kind of work environment.
My career is behind me now.
What is not there (even in the parts I didn’t include here)?
The reality that, had the author of that post come out in Massachusetts in 1993 not as a trans woman but as a gay man, she would have had legal recourse against everything that befell her.
That’s what gay-only rights laws do: They delegitimze the entire landscape of employment in the states where such laws are concocted. No gay man or lesbian who has obtained (non-federal) employment in Massachusetts since 1989 has done so legitimately. They’ve all gone into the job-hunting process safe in the knowledge that they have legal recourse against anti-gay discrimination – but no trans person who may be applying for the same position goes into the process with any protection whatsoever. In short, they’ve never actually had to compete honestly for any job against any trans person.
You’re thinking that that analysis is harsh? Hate-filled?
Try living on the short end of what gay-only rights legal regimes do to trans people.
But, you don’t have to now do you?
You can toss around words like “tranny” and convince yourself that its okay because you’re a self-proclaimed ally. After all, you’re protected – and can marry – whether Massachusetts’ 1989 political hate crime against trans people is ever rectified or not.