Oh Yeah…Not Having a Trans Person Represent Trans Issues Won’t End Up Screwing Trans People, Right? Never Has…Right? Never Could…Right?

Uhhhh……well, not exactly.

I’ll say this: Even I didn’t think that the NAACP’s gay corporatist, faux ‘LGBT’ panel would yield something as bad as warmed-over Aravosishit with rancid, vintage 1999 HRC icing.

I guess Lemon’s ‘knowledgeability’ explains how CNN was so willing to foist Susan Stanton on its viewers.

Appleturnertini!

Don Lemon?

I bet that the rotting corpse of Jack Lemmon (only a cross-dresser for hire once upon a Hot time) could come up with a less-offensive sound-fart than “same thing as gay.” (Hell, I’d even wager a few bucks on ‘ditto for Amy Winehouse’.)

32 Responses to Oh Yeah…Not Having a Trans Person Represent Trans Issues Won’t End Up Screwing Trans People, Right? Never Has…Right? Never Could…Right?

  1. LGBx says:

    If you don’t want to be gay, then why don’t you leave our movement?

    Why do you demand that we make every legislative sacrifice for the trans population that makes up a fraction of one percent of our population, while also rebuking us as privileged elitists?

    If you want only Trans people representing other Trans, feel free to create your own movement. Ohhhh wait, then you wouldn’t have all of that legislative advocacy and media exposure, and the millions of votes that come with it.

    • I’m lesbian and trans… all at the same time, and I can tell you that my orientation and my gender are two very different things. The issue is not representation by cisLBG allies to me, it’s INCOMPETENT representation by cisLG allies who somehow think that every trans person wants to fuck someone of the opposite identified gender.

      Dykes like me are tired of being erased by bullshit like this, is why.

      And yeah, your movement dies without us, I hate to tell you so, but we’re stuck together whether we like it or not. And I’ll tell you who principally doesn’t like it doesn’t like it: Assimilationist professional class gay men, TERFs and HBS/WBTers, and if you don’t know the acronyms you haven’t been online long enough to ask a derailing comment like that.

      • LGBx says:

        But this is exactly my point – your orientation and your gender ARE two very different things, and it’s not surprising that gender issues tend to get ignored in a movement that is based mainly on sexuality.

        I’m sure you’re tired of being erased by it, which is why it doesn’t make sense to buy into the common assumption that “we’re stuck together whether we like it or not.”

        In what way does the LGB movement die without the T? In what way is the T movement incapable of standing on its own or aligning with other gender-based movements?

    • Kathleen says:

      “If you want only Trans people representing other Trans, feel free to create your own movement”

      Hah – dome dick making this comment regarding a conference specifically set up to address the needs of s group that is underrepresented and underserved by the gay movement is just priceless. You’re so cute when you’re angry, I look forward to your arguing that Joe Solmonese and David Smith could easily fill Don Lemon’s and Kenyon’s place on this panel.

      Hell – they could fill the women’s spots as well. And you can speak for trans people lives and needs there.

      Brilliant! So – tell us about your transition and how it effected your employment and family. What policy changes would be most important to you as a trans person that aren’t being addressed and are most misunderstood by the general public?

      Some gay advocates say you’re gay and yet you’re not coveted in your state’s nondiscrimination ordinance – but they are. Should you just shut up and make believe you are to make them feel better? How will you address this issue on that panel when gay people from NY or MA say equality has been achieved there?

      Please – show us how it should be done.

      • LGBx says:

        If Trans are underrepresented and underserved by the gay movement, how does it make sense for them to remain in the gay movement? If you are not okay with having “cis” gays as the voice of a collective LGBT movement, doesn’t it make more sense to employ your own movement with your chosen and preferred spokespersons? If gay advocates refuse to fight for Trans issues then what are you doing in bed with them???

      • LGBx … explain why HRC then took it upon themselves to presume conservatorship and feign expertise on Trans issues, which they still advertise to media, politics and the rest of the nation? Why aren’t you insisting they cut us loose? (Money?)

    • if you think that was bad in the 1990’s in my native Austrakia ti get approved for gsr a panel had to vote the panel had a catholic priest and a baptist minister on the panel noone ver got approved the first time

    • Katrina Rose says:

      If you don’t want to be gay, then why don’t you leave our movement?

      Undo the damage that you’ve done to us over the last 40 years and we’ll talk.

      Why do you demand that we make every legislative sacrifice for the trans population

      Actually, we request that for once you at least consider not being a collective Gordon Gekko of civil rights.

      If you want only Trans people representing other Trans, feel free to create your own movement.

      Hmmmmmmmm….

      What’s that I smell?

      Very likely someone who is at the front of the protest line when non-gays portray gays.

      Ohhhh wait, then you wouldn’t have all of that legislative advocacy and media exposure

      1950s scoreboard.

      1960s scoreboard.

      1970s scoreboard.

      Get thee to an Aravosisery.

      • LGBx says:

        “Undo the damage that you’ve done to us over the last 40 years and we’ll talk.”

        This makes no sense. That gays have been consistently doing damage to Trans for the last 40 years makes it all the more self-defeating that Trans still insist on remaining a part of that group.

        “Actually, we request that for once you at least consider not being a collective Gordon Gekko of civil rights.”

        This also makes no sense. You are asking the vast majority of the LGBT to refuse employment protections that were ready to be passed simply because they were not extended to one group of the many (namely, your group), even with the pledge that we would continue fighting for trans inclusion after the initial bill passed. You want millions of people to go without protections because this legislation does not accommodate a fraction of one percent of the population. And I am the Gordon Gekko?

        “Very likely someone who is at the front of the protest line when non-gays portray gays.”

        Um, no. There are plenty of people of straight, bisexual or other orientation that are perfectly knowledgeable and articulate about gay issues. I am much more concerned with the content of what someone is saying than I am with the sexual or gender identity of the person speaking. But I guess ‘identity politics’ doesn’t allow that.

    • LGBx, why do you insist upon falsely reducing our numbers to a fraction of a percent? Prof. Lynn Conway did her own research on this some time back, and confirmed the previous estimate (from the early 90’s) that we’re, en toto, 2% of the population. Now, post-op transsexuals are what you appear to be focusing on (approx. .2%), but that’s not the whole community. You’re propagating the same myth that conservatives spew in effort to diminish then dismiss us.

      And while on this, where are the hard numbers that show gay/lesbians to be 10% of the population, and not 5% or less? The recent census data of couples show it to be closer to 2-3%, however, I’m sure that’s undercounted. Note that I don’t pretend to be the expert and state that those lower figures are your true numbers … guess I should follow your lead and just make stuff up, eh? Repeat it over and over (regardless of proof) and it becomes fact (however manufactured). Now where have I heard that concept before …. hmmm …?

      • Well, surely, by their numbers, all the invisible cisGLB folk are just closeted… while every trans woman in existence is out and proud from age four onward.

  2. Kathleen says:

    LGBx says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    If Trans are underrepresented and underserved by the gay movement, how does it make sense for them to remain in the gay movement? If you are not okay with having “cis” gays as the voice of a collective LGBT movement, doesn’t it make more sense to employ your own movement with your chosen and preferred spokespersons? If gay advocates refuse to fight for Trans issues then what are you doing in bed with them???
    —————

    I’m quite prepared to answer your questions when you answer mine.

    • LGBx says:

      Your questions are utterly irrelevant to the topic in question. You are asking policy questions, when the issue that I originally raised is one of representation – if LGB is so inadequate, why is T, seemingly against its own interests, clinging to it?

      “What policy changes would be most important to you as a trans person that aren’t being addressed and are most misunderstood by the general public?”

      Well, I’m not Trans nor am I purporting to speak for Trans, so, again, this question is not relevant to the discussion. In fact, it only furthers my point – if gays are so ignorant to Trans issues, why stick around?

      “Some gay advocates say you’re gay and yet you’re not coveted in your state’s nondiscrimination ordinance – but they are. Should you just shut up and make believe you are to make them feel better?”

      If your state has a nondiscrimination ordinance for sexual orientation but not gender identity and you are gay, you are covered by the ordinance with respect to your sexuality. If you are gay and transgender, you are covered with respect to your sexuality but not your gender identity. What all people should be working toward is the amendment or passage of nondiscrimination ordinances in every state and the federal govt to include gender identity. If, as you seem to be implying, you feel silenced by gay advocates, then please enlighten me as to why, in your mind, continuing to work with gay advocates and within the gay movement is the right thing to do for transpeople?

      “How will you address this issue on that panel when gay people from NY or MA say equality has been achieved there?”

      Well, again, I’m not on the panel nor am I purporting to argue what the panel should have said or who should have been on it, so what I would have said is totally irrelevant. What the discussion is about and what I am questioning the “fitness” of LGB and T as allies. Everything you and the other commenters have offered thus far seems to support my contention that the alliance isn’t working.

      • Kathleen says:

        You’re making these comments in the context of this event.

        Since when is the NAACP a gay org? Since when is Don Lemon a gay org? The NAACP said this is an lgbt event to discuss lgbt issues. As your answers show – having a gay man speak for LB or T issues means they simply won’t be addressed adequately. This does not imply that orgs should only hire and only work on issues of gay men.

        If you don’t think bi folk have these very same concerns – and are the largest segment of the lgbt acronym – you’re not listening to us either.

      • Just for the record, “If your state has a nondiscrimination ordinance for sexual orientation but not gender identity and you are gay, you are covered by the ordinance with respect to your sexuality. If you are gay and transgender, you are covered with respect to your sexuality but not your gender identity” isn’t always the case. I pushed one of our arch-conservatives (Rep. Warren Chisum) to support the James Byrd Hate Crimes Bill, to which he insisted his wording be used — i.e. he wanted coverage, but not to make it sound like our conditions were of nature but were of our own choices. They specifically added words “heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality” to help further describe what “sexual preference” (Chisums wording) meant. His other wording for “gender non-conformity” (and I believe further described with “transsexuality and transvestitism”) were removed by our liberal Sen. Rodney Ellis.

        The law’s pretty explicit. And a couple years after it became law I had need for said protection on an assault around the corner from me. (Nothing major beyond lost and crunched teeth). When I bugged our D.A.’s office about it (a conservative Rosenthal hack), his reply was “No, it does not. Your not in the wording, and we are not in the business of creating law — only following it to the letter.” I was already aware of it because I’d buttonholed Ellis and begged for the inclusion, only to get his false promise that he’d “come back for us next session,” but I figured I’d try anyway as the guy’s friend (who I’d worked elections with and knew how to look me up as precinct chairs like me had to have our address & contact info on the party websites) was not only friends to this goon, but an avowed gun nut replete with his Charlton Heston quote sticker smack on his truck’s back bumper. It would’ve been nice to be covered, but no dice.

        Needless to say, this renders your allegation above just as toothless. Nice try.

        You know LGBx … you remind me a lot of Bug Brennan: same writing style and someone with a penchant for getting on Trans sites and stirring up excrement.

      • One other point … “Well, I’m not Trans nor am I purporting to speak for Trans, so, again, this question is not relevant to the discussion. In fact, it only furthers my point – if gays are so ignorant to Trans issues, why stick around?” Yes there are a handful of those. They’re very high visibility (thanks to those same Gay Inc. folks who wished to choose who represent us rather than us having our own). These folks do so for the same reason that Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom did — they escape the maelstrom below to gain their own personal rewards while knocking down & keeping the rest of us crabs in the pot to boil. Those individual insist on keeping the status quo. The rest of us have been disenchanted with Gay Inc. ever since this wresting of Trans destiny away from the Trans community and into their own well-funded (but ever-hungry) clutches beginning about a decade ago.

        It’s simply the latest iteration of the Elizabeth Birch-initiated “it’s gender, you’re covered under gender, try it in the courts” era where Trans was attempted to be washed away and revealed as nothing but genderqueer (with a little help from another more opportunistic former community member).

      • Katrina Rose says:

        with a little help from another more opportunistic former community member

        Not to mention an exterminationistic lesbian con artist from Maryland.

  3. Kathleen says:

    Sounds justice that Rosendall, Dick fellow from a few months back.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Actually, I’m smelling a labor(ious) brain that’s full of mesh (and privilege, though that should go without saying.)

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Dick Fellow?

      Wasn’t that a character Tracy Morgan played on SNL?

      • The Character was “Brian Fellows” and it’s depressing personally that I remember that.

        And @LGBx being trans gives me an awful lot more that I have to address regarding my sexuality, including answering the uncomprehending stares of gay men when I tell them that I’m a lesbian. To whit: “Well what was the point of that?!”

  4. […] off, I stand by my earlier juxtaposition between Don Lemon and Jack Lemmon – only to the extent that I’d be willing to bet that Don Lemon has less of a clue about […]

  5. I don’t know who LGBx is, but they are talking SENSE!

    I sincerely do not understand whether trans people want special trans-wording in the law, or whether they want to be protected under the concept of “gender.” Vanessa Edwards Foster says:

    It’s simply the latest iteration of the Elizabeth Birch-initiated “it’s gender, you’re covered under gender, try it in the courts” era where Trans was attempted to be washed away and revealed as nothing but genderqueer (with a little help from another more opportunistic former community member).

    Ok, well, if trans is NOT to be washed away into the muddy waters of genderqueer, it must have a definition BESIDES “gender non-conformity.” It should probably distinguish itself on an objective basis such as that of permanent SEX-changing– especially if you are seeking entrance to places that are segregated BY sex (which is different than gender!). In regard to the nebulous concept of “gender,” any female who does not fully embody stereotypical femininity is vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of gender (non-conformity). Yet, that does not amount to being trans. So what *is* trans? And what do you want, if not “gender” protection? I sincerely do not understand.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Having a senior moment, are we?

    • Well, the doctors have a fairly good one:

      Trans-A persistent desire to be viewed/treated/present as a gender different from that to which one was assigned.

      Oh, and that includes genderqueer folk too.

      Add permanent/situationally permanent means of bodily modification and you pretty much have a definition of transsexuality. So permanent facial hair removal for the purposes of looking like a clean-shaven man? Cis, For the purposes of not getting gendered male with the same frequency? Trans.

      We’re asking for protection not on the basis of gender but of gender identity and presentation. So a bearded man in a blouse that he finds flattering is, yes, going to be covered under the same laws… the waitress who shaves her head for cancer research too.

      I know that this broad and inclusive language puts some cisfolk ill-at ease. Tough. Anything less is repeating the old assimilationist wrongs, and anything arguing for their irrelevance is privileged cisfolk arguing that we’re just people who get carried away with genderfuck.

      PS: Drop the lockerroom panic. It’s tired. And also, it’s far more dangerous to force a non-or-pre-operative trans woman into a room with a bunch of unsupervised men .

  6. Ok, well, first of all, sex and gender are different. So “Add permanent/situationally permanent means of bodily modification” would be absolutely PIVOTAL to legal differentiation between cross-dressers and trans people. Unfortunately, I have never seen this proposed in any of legislation aimed at the protection of “gender.” Also, the bald waitress with cancer is not having gendered distress– if she is discriminated because she is not “feminine” enough, it is because of sex stereotyping, NOT because of her “identity” or purposeful “gender presentation.” That’s part of the problem with your strategy. It is overbroad to the point of absurdity.

    And secondly, about the “lockerroom panic”? Oh, hell no! You should not mansplain to females about what what we do and not have have reason to be concerned about. Jesus. I mean, do you not know how BABIES are made? Here is a chart to help you understand female-specific harm.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      do you not know how BABIES are made?

      When last I checked rape was an act of violence, not an act of sex.

      Get thee to a Raymondery until you learn what spurs most murders of transsexual women, or just keep on moving those goalposts around. Its doing wonders for your wholly healthy physique (Your mental acuity? Not so much.)

  7. What?? A rapist’s specific INTENT regarding impregnation is not relevant! I mean, that’s kind of funny. Like simply not *wanting* to impregnate a woman is enough to prevent it from actually happening despite having penis-in-vagina sex! HA! What a great birth control method! LOL!

    Rapist intent– specific AND general–is irrelevant. Penis-in-vagina causes impregnation, doesn’t matter if you like/want it or not. That’s how babies are made!! Only females are vulnerable to this harm. And only males can cause it.

    Bio facts=legitimate legal concern for females.

    Also, please stop retorting “get thee to a [blank]”. It’s not an argument, it’s an abject dismissal that reflects poorly on *your* mental acuity and fitness to engage in political discourse.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Sounds like you have far more experience being on the commission end of rape than with being and/or fearing being a victim of it.

      Chromosome test, please?

      • Katrina Rose, please. Another personal attack? I thought this was a blog about POLITICS and legal issues. Can you not follow my drift, or what?

        My chromosomal make up is not relevant. Female reproductive vulnerability to males is relevant. If persons born with male reproductive organs want access to female spaces, at a MINIMUM, they should not be able to impregnate females. That is an exceedingly reasonable legal restriction, tailored to prevent female-specific harm that ONLY intact, fertile males can cause. I don’t understand why (save misogyny) anyone would deny females this basic protection.

        Some males just want to play dress up. I don’t want them in female-only space. This is not unreasonable.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Can you not follow my drift, or what?

        Oh, I can easily identify someone who is drifting.

        I learned how by gazing at Dublin Harbor many years ago.

  8. Tiffany says:

    “This also makes no sense. You are asking the vast majority of the LGBT to refuse employment protections that were ready to be passed simply because they were not extended to one group of the many (namely, your group), even with the pledge that we would continue fighting for trans inclusion after the initial bill passed. You want millions of people to go without protections because this legislation does not accommodate a fraction of one percent of the population. And I am the Gordon Gekko?”

    I find it hard to believe that any sizable percentage of the lgb would continue fighting for the T in such a scenario. Most of them would throw the trans men and women under the bus (like The HRC has been known to do) and not pay them a second of attention from that point forward.

    There would still be some sure, though I would bet on it being a rather small percentage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: