The Privilege of Being Able to Have Your Wants Trump the Needs of Others

Privilege – 2012:

Propaganda – 2001:

The commonality?

Well, you know….

28 Responses to The Privilege of Being Able to Have Your Wants Trump the Needs of Others

  1. valeriekeefe says:

    HRC literally called it a discrimination free zone? Well, I guess I have my next column.

  2. Vic says:

    If MD passes a trans rights law, that would trump the right of the uninsured to free universal health care. What kind of person are you to put trans wants over the needs of the poor?

    • valeriekeefe says:

      Vic, unlike you I speak over my own name, so you can see the stuff I’ve written on Huffpo, like Incrementalism and the Folly of Marriage before Non-Discrimination. And I have said, explicitly, if there was a single-payer health care bill, I would happily shelve ENDA if that’s what it took to get it passed. If there were a three dollar an hour increase in the minimum wage, I’d shelve ENDA. If it came to Roe v. Wade or ENDA, Roe v. Wade comes first, for the women and men who can get pregnant, that’s a more integral human rights issue (though I’d include Exogenous Endocrine Intervention in any push for secure rights in the provision of birth control, especially since it’s the equivalent of the pill when it comes to trans women and men.)

      But extending marriage rights? What non-existent frippery is this in comparison to a comprehensive employment, housing, and public accommodations non-discrimination act? Especially in New Jersey, where the law is such that civil unions are marriage in all but name, but people like you, Vic, will keep pushing in New Jersey, never mind gay Texans or Alabamans or Louisianans, despite there being polling numbers for ENDA so strong that you could put it on the ballot and it’d win.

      Vic, at some point you’re going to have to let your cissexism get out of the way of your politics, or you’re going to continue to preserve an intolerable way of life for about half the cis gays and lesbians in America. Not all of us are lucky enough to live in Michigan and own our own land.

      • Vic says:

        You’d shelve ENDA in exchange for passage of single payer. How noble of you.
        That isn’t the comparison. The comparison is that some non-trans activist demands that you shelve a top trans-only priority, which you actually have a shot at winning, in order to prioritize their non-trans issue, which you have no guaranty of winning.

        The only reason “Kat” presumes that she can talk about marriage “trumping” trans rights is because she assumes that gay people have some sort of obligation to her to prioritize her issues. She might just as well go down the list of every law that passed in MD in the past year and denounce all the businesses, labor unions, and special interest groups that supported those laws for “trumping” her issues. But doesn’t do that. She reserves her evil bile for gay people because, in her madness, she thinks that gay people owe her something.

        We don’t. So you can look forward to many, many years of getting trumped. I’d say that I hope it drives you all insane, but I think we are already there.

      • valeriekeefe says:

        Vic, changing the parameters of the debate to suit his argument, said:

        The comparison is that some non-trans activist demands that you shelve a top trans-only priority, which you actually have a shot at winning, in order to prioritize their non-trans issue, which you have no guaranty of winning.

        No chance of winning Vic?

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-keefe/enda_b_1256174.html

        We could put an inclusive ENDA on the Arkansas ballot and we’d win by twenty points. It’s only same-legal-sex marriage that’s scraping by with a two-or-three point majority nationally.

        ENDA out-polls same-legal-sex-marriage by twenty-two points. 73% for an inclusive ENDA to 51% for a DOMA repeal.

        We could put it on the ballot in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming as constitutional provision and only New Hampshire would be iffy, because they require a two-thirds majority to amend their constitution.

        Stop pretending we can’t get it passed. You just don’t give a shit about gay Georgians, or trans Louisianans. I’ve stated facts you [ought to] already know, since you’re representing yourself as an expert on the art of the possible.

        You. Just. Don’t. Care.

  3. friday jones says:

    Because there aren’t any uninsured trans people? “Vic,” you seem dumber than a sack of doorknobs.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Perhaps we’ve been unfair to “Vic” in presuming him to be one (both?) of the Exterminationism Twins.

      Clearly, he’s the ghost of Ray Bolger.

      Only the Scarecrow could be that adept at pulling straw men out of his ass.

    • Vic says:

      There are also gay trans people who want to have a same-sex marriage. Maybe you should rethink your line of argument.

      Sincerely,
      A Sack of Doorknobs

      • friday jones says:

        Dear Sack of Doorknobs,

        Perhaps, but I bet they don’t prioritize their desire “to have a same-sex marriage” over their need to have a home and a job free of discrimination, or to be able to pee in peace. Maybe you should rethink your entire selfish position.

      • valeriekeefe says:

        There are also straight trans people who want to have a same-legal-sex marriage, you fuckwit. This isn’t Uruguay where the government inherently respects the identified sex of every citizen, on demand!

        Also, and you well know this, If a trans person can’t get a job because of discrimination by slur-slinging cissexists like your entitled self, it’s pretty hard for them to afford, or in any way benefit, from a marriage, since most of the benefits are tied to employment benefits and more generous income tax treatment.

  4. Ursa Maritimus says:

    I’ve just assumed that Vic was Vic Basile, a notoriously antitrans founder of HRC. To get the idea that any connection exists between single payer health coverage and trans rights laws, he must have been chasing the dragon.

    • valeriekeefe says:

      Rather fair, but If Bart Stupak can go on a crusade against the right of mullerians to control what happens in their uteri and threaten health care to do it, surely Barney Frank or whoever becomes the point-cissexual on ENDA could do so too.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Advantage, Ursa – though if “Vic” has been chasing the dragon, I think that at some point the dragon slammed on its brakes whilst “Vic” kept barrelling onward.

      • friday jones says:

        “Vic” has essentially been rear-ending the dragon repeatedly? His problem is of an even greater SCALE than I’d previously believed.

  5. Actually Vic, the issue is with groups that pretend to represent trans people using trans protections to barter for gay-only protections. Like if a labor coalition is trying to defend the rights of workers, but decides to exempt teachers from collective bargaining so that the rest of the coalition can have collective bargaining. Need we bring up NH?

    Given the grabbity-grab the L/G have been guilty of for the past 30+ years, and the intentional sabotaging of various trans-specific groups and initiatives by individual gay men and lesbians (and groups) – one could make the point that the L/G does, in fact, owe trans people.

    However, I’m not one to play that tune. I’d be happy with the L/G simply holding itself to the same standards wrt trans people as they hold the mainstream, coming clean about the trans women used to pass anti-discrimination laws in NY, NH, MA, etc. Fess up to the reality that “gay history” as we have been forced to accept is actually more Bi and trans history than G/L history, and the actual admission that trans people were winning legal rights when gay people were first really organizing their first political actions.

    Admit these and wave good-bye. One should expect that a group the gets so unglued every time NOM trots out the old Cameron “statistics” wouldn’t have such an aversion to telling the truth. For the record, I’m not holding my breath.

    • valeriekeefe says:

      I said exactly that in a recent column on the subject.

      Could you imagine if the AFL-CIO wanted a law that prevented city governments from imposing contracts on unionized workers, except for bus drivers? Because, well, Americans believe in equal treatment and respect for a union’s right to organize, but there are some people who don’t quite understand bus drivers and why they want the same rights as the rest of the unions… I mean, police, firefighters, sure, we’ve gotten used to them, we like them, but bus drivers haven’t done the education necessary.

      They’d be laughed out of the room. A union, an organization, tries to improve outcomes for all its members. Now, sometimes they have to negotiate with different employers, and different employers would only allow so much on the basis of what public pressure would require, but when it comes to governments and laws, the union, and for that matter the Fourteenth Amendment, would blanch at the notion that there is one group of people who deserve protection under the law and one group of people who don’t.

      QED Vic.

  6. friday jones says:

    Actually, if you want to see a concrete reason that the radical feminist lesbian community owes trans women big time, it would be due to Janice Raymond’s bigoted, unscientific, and prejudicially biased commissioned paper for the federal government, “Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery, for the US Government.” That, plus the hounding of Sandy Stone from Olivia Records, plus harassing Beth Eliot during a public musical performance, is enough direct and incontrovertible evidence of a group of privileged people doing their best to oppress trans women to convince anyone with a fair mind that the oppression was systematic and had wide-reaching consequences that negatively impacted many thousands of trans women.

    How can anyone even think of disputing or denying these facts on the ground? The G&L have accrued a rather large ethical debt to trans women, from 1979 right on up until Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford wrote that letter to the UN, and then the (no so) Fab Five printed their lies about Dan Savage in Toronto. It’s systemic oppression by gays and lesbians directed upon trans women.

  7. Vic says:

    @Valerie:

    Regarding your 2 comments above-

    – On ENDA polling, your point might be relevant IF you were talking about the polling on the trans provisions of the bill specifically. In MD, which is what this post is about, the legislature is considering only the trans protections b/c gay protections are already in place. So to say that this would be an easy goal, you would need to point to polling on gender identity specifically. Obviously the MD legislators know something you don’t cuz they weren’t falling over themselves to pass this.

    – Yes, I could easily imagine the AFL-CIO or some other labor organization backing a pro-labor law that excludes or fails to cover workers in a particular occupation. Why might this happen? Well, because the organization doesn’t represent the employees in that field. I don’t expect the local firefighters’ union to give up benefits because the offer doesn’t cover cops.

    HRC is a gay organization, not a trans organization. It makes no sense for a gay organization to sacrifice gay rights for the agenda of a non-gay group, especially when that group brings nothing to the table. You believe in the myth of “LGBT” and you assume that people take it seriously. They don’t. They use the term, but we all know that it is BS.

    • valeriekeefe says:

      Vic, you ignorant slut, support for an inclusive ENDA is at 73%. Support for a sexual-orientation-only ENDA is at 75%.

      Support for GENDA is at 78% in New York.

      The difference of two percent when trans rights are added can mostly be found near Rhode Island Avenue and Heart Michigan. It’s not the general public. It’s unrepentant cissexists like you.

      That HRC is a gay-only organization is news to Mara Keisling. They purport to be an LGBT organization.

      PS: Your counter-argument on union contracts ignores the difference between contracts and laws, which I specifically spoke to in my piece. But by all means, let the disingenuousness ride.

      • Polling for GENDA was 78% when it was traded in for the less popular 64%(ish) gay marriage.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        There you go again with your pesky facts (that don’t fit the Gay Marriage, Inc. narrative.)

        Keep that up and Allyson Robinson will track you down and take away your HRC water bottle.

      • friday jones says:

        HRC’s arguments might not hold water, but this stylish nalgene sports bottle with striking gold Equality sign over a field of royal blue will supply all of your water-holding needs. Disclaimer: The HRC doesn’t carry water for the trans community, the trans community carries water for the HRC. Some bottles larger than others. For some, it will take time for the water to “trickle down.” Appletini not included.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      HRC is a gay organization, not a trans organization.

      Too late.

      They’ve represented themselves as LGBT and accepted money and other things of value based on that representation.

      Here’s a deal fer ‘ya: We’ll give you back your Gay Birch Society if you get every individual who had any hand in the civil and criminal acts of fraud embodied by the representations of HRC as trans-inclusive in concert with the multiplicity of actions by and allowed by HRC against the best interests of trans people which would allow a jury of reasonable citizens to conclude that fraud had been committed to provide us with affidavits admitting their guilt.

    • valeriekeefe says:

      The ball’s in your court, sir. Care to finally debate in good-faith? Possibly link to something you’ve written elsewhere on the issue? Or do you just want to be a crusty-sockpuppet?

      C’mon, Mister.

  8. valeriekeefe says:

    Some might call Vic a complete and total waste of time, but I would disagree. Every asinine response of his makes me just a little quicker on the draw, just a little more ready with the facts. Dealing with a rhetorical masturbater like Vic makes me a better debater.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Every asinine response of his makes me just a little quicker on the draw

      He’s basically writing an entire chapter of my dissertation for me – comment by comment.

      • valeriekeefe says:

        Brennan got another couple thousand words out of me on lesbian solidarity, something the 29% of us trans women who are lesbian don’t spend enough time talking about.

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: