Aug 10, 2008
Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism
It's been a long time since I wrote a blog post. And, I guess if I'm honest here, I'm not writing one now. I don't know when, or if, I'll ever blog regularly again. But, that's not the point of this post.
I came across this article nearly a week ago. But, I've been crazy busy with work and only just now found time to read it. It's quite long, and it takes a fair amount of critical thinking to get through it. But, it's really worth it. I don't agree with everything she says here. But, her main points are essential, in my view. Take some time and read this. It really is more than just a re-hashing of this decade-long debate.
According to this view, trans women lie at the intersection of (at least) two types of sexism. The first is cissexism, which is the societal-wide tendency to view transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments as being less legitimate than those of cissexuals -- that is, nontranssexuals. (Note: the word "cisgender" is similarly used as a synonym for nontransgender.) Cissexism functions in a manner analogous to heterosexism: Transsexual gender identities and homosexual/bisexual orientations are both typically viewed as being inherently questionable, unnatural, morally suspect, and less socially and legally valid than their cissexual and heterosexual counterparts. Not only does cissexism institutionally marginalize transsexual individuals, but it privileges cissexuals, rendering their genders and sexed bodies as unquestionable, unmarked and taken for granted (similar to how heterosexual attraction and relationships are privileged in our culture).
While all transsexuals face cissexism, trans women experience this form of sexism as being especially exacerbated by traditional sexism. For example, trans women are routinely hyper-sexualized in our society, especially in the media, where we are regularly depicted as fetishists, sexual deceivers, sex workers and/or in a sexually provocative fashion (trans men, in contrast, are not typically depicted in this way). The common presumption that trans women transition to female for sexual reasons seems to be based on the premise that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. Furthermore, most of the societal consternation, ridicule and violence directed at trans people focuses on individuals on the trans feminine spectrum -- often specifically targeting our desire to be female or our feminine presentation. While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way -- to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question. Thus, those of us on the trans feminine spectrum don't merely experience cissexism or "transphobia" so much as we experience trans-misogyny.
...
Given the violence and extreme poverty that afflicts many trans people, some have suggested that the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue has received an undeserved amount of activist attention. And the fact that tickets to this weeklong festival cost several hundred dollars -- a luxury many trans folks cannot afford -- is often cited by those who view MWMF's policy as primarily a middle-class trans issue. While MWMF is not the most pressing trans-related issue out there, such critiques miss the larger picture. This is not about the desire to simply attend one music festival. Rather, for lesbian and bisexual trans women, this is about us being able to participate in our own queer women's community -- a community in which we face anywhere from antagonism to irrelevancy on a regular basis.
**********************************************************************
Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism
"The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy and the queasiness felt around a sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women -- or those who play the female role -- are held."
In 1991, Nancy Jean Burkholder was expelled from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (MWMF), the world's largest annual women-only event, because festival workers suspected that she was a trans woman -- that is, someone who was assigned a male sex at birth but who identifies and lives as female. That incident sparked protests from a burgeoning transgender movement to challenge what eventually came to be known as the festival's "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, which effectively bars trans women from attending. The protests evolved into Camp Trans, which continues to take place just down the road from MWMF each year, and which has become a focal point for a much broader push for trans-inclusion within feminist and queer communities. Despite more than 15 years of petitioning, and a growing acceptance of trans identities in both mainstream society and within queer, feminist and other progressive circles, the festival still officially maintains its "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, and countless other lesbian- and queer-woman-focused groups and events continue to harbor dismissive, if not outright disdainful, attitudes toward trans women.
The history of the MWMF trans woman-exclusion debate has been retold countless times -- often in an overly simplistic, cut-and-dry manner. The controversy is usually depicted in one of two ways: either pitting the supposedly out-of-touch, transphobic lesbian-separatists who run the festival against a more politically progressive transgender minority, or portraying transgender activists as bullies who selfishly seek to undermine one of the few remaining vestiges of women-only space with their supposedly masculine bodies and energies. In addition to being obvious caricatures, these sorts of us-versus-them portrayals obscure one of the most important aspects of the story: the fact that there are actually three "sides" to this debate, each driven by a different take on feminism.
Rather than rehash the history or delve into all of the details about the festival and the controversy, I will attempt to describe these three differing feminist perspectives and discuss how they have played out with regard to the issue of trans woman-exclusion at MWMF, as well as in lesbian/queer women's communities more generally.
For those unfamiliar with the subject, I will start by defining some of the trans-specific language that I will be using. Transsexuals are individuals who identify and live as members of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth. A trans woman is someone who has socially, physically and/or legally transitioned from male to female, and a trans man is someone who has similarly transitioned from female to male. While the medical establishment (and the mainstream media) typically define "transsexual" in terms of the medical procedures that an individual might undergo (for example, hormones and surgeries), many trans people find such definitions to be objectifying (as they place undue focus on body parts rather than the person as a whole) and classist (as not all trans people can afford to physically transition). For these reasons, trans activists favor definitions based on self-identity, that is, whether one identifies and lives as a woman or man. "Transgender" is an umbrella term for all people who defy other people's expectations and assumptions regarding gender, and can be used to refer to transsexuals as well as people who are gender nonconforming in other ways -- for example, cross-dressers, drag performers, feminine men, masculine women, and genderqueers (who do not identify exclusively as either women or men), to name a few. Transgender people who defy gender norms in the male-to-female/feminine direction are said to be on the trans feminine spectrum; those who transgress gender norms in the female-to-male/masculine direction make up the trans masculine spectrum.
-- Radicalesbians (1970)
Unilateral Sexism and Lesbian-Feminism
MWMF is one of many women-only institutions that grew out of the lesbian-feminist movement during the 1970s and 1980s. A dominant ideology within that movement was the belief that sexism constitutes a unilateral form of oppression -- that is, men are the oppressors, and women the oppressed, end of story. While more liberal or reform-minded feminists of that time period focused primarily on the most obvious examples of sexism (e.g., wage and workplace discrimination, sexual harassment, reproductive rights, etc.), lesbian- (and other radical) feminists extended their critiques of sexism to include many taken-for-granted aspects of gender and sexuality. They argued, for example, that masculinity is inherently dominating and oppressive and that femininity is necessarily associated with objectification and subjugation, and that both forms of gender expression are merely products of socialization rather than natural aspects of people. According to this perspective, a first step toward overturning sexism is for individuals to distance themselves from ways of being that are associated with male domination and female subjugation and instead revert to more natural (and presumably androgynous) forms of gender and sexual expression.
Lesbian-feminist critiques did not solely take aim at the heterosexual mainstream; they also targeted other sexual minorities whose gender and sexual practices were deemed (in their view) to emulate unilateral sexism. This includes those who engage in BDSM (who were seen as reinforcing dominant/submissive sexual roles), and butch and femme lesbians, drag performers, cross-dressers, and transsexuals (who were all seen as reinforcing masculine/feminine gender roles). While lesbian-feminists derided many forms of what we would now call transgender expression, the bulk of their contempt was directed squarely at trans women and others on the trans feminine spectrum. This attitude stemmed both from the assumption that trans women are "really men" (i.e., oppressors) and that femininity is tantamount to a "slave status." Thus, according to this logic, trans female and trans feminine individuals were viewed as oppressors who appropriate the dress and identities of the very people they oppress. For example, feminist Robin Morgan claimed that trans women "parody female oppression and suffering," and Mary Daly equated trans feminine expression with "whites playing "blackface.'" Many (including Morgan and, most famously, Janice Raymond) even described trans womanhood as a form of rape.
While many lesbian-feminists today will concede that such accusations are beyond the pale, their unilateral perspective on sexism still leads them to insist that trans women should not be allowed to enter women-only spaces such as MWMF based on the assumption that trans women have experienced male socialization and privilege in the past, and/or because their bodies, personalities and energies still supposedly remain "male" or "masculine" on some level.
The Gender Binary, Queer Theory and Transgender Activism
Prior to the mid-1990s, trans women and allies typically responded to trans woman-exclusion by stressing the similarities between trans women (who live as women and thus experience misogyny in their day-to-day lives) and non-trans women. But this strategy of emphasizing similarities became less relevant by the mid-to-late 1990s due to the rise of "third wave" feminisms, which challenged universalizing views of womanhood and examined the many differences that exist between women. For example, "third wave" feminists embraced the critiques made by women of color over the years that the belief that sexism was the "primary" oppression, or even a unilateral form of oppression, ignores the ways in which sexism intersects with racism and classism in many women's lives. Additionally, many feminists (especially younger ones) around this time began reclaiming expressions of femininity and sexuality that had previously been considered taboo or repressive among lesbian-feminists. But perhaps no shift in feminism had such a profound affect on transgender-inclusion within lesbian and queer women's communities as the rise of queer theory.
Queer theory shares the lesbian-feminist belief that many aspects of gender and sexuality are culturally derived (rather than natural), but takes this notion one step further by bringing into question the very categories upon which sexisms are based. This is often accomplished by critiquing, subverting and deconstructing the "gender binary" -- that is, the assumption that there are only two legitimate genders: feminine women and masculine men. For this reason, many queer theorists became particularly interested in transgender people, whom they sometimes hailed for challenging traditional notions about femaleness and maleness. This view is in sharp contrast to lesbian-feminist perspectives, which claimed that these same individuals reinforced oppressive sex roles.
Queer theory both influenced, and was influenced by, the rise of transgender activism -- a movement to unite previously disparate gender-variant communities around the idea that these groups are all targeted for discrimination because they transgress binary gender norms. Activists such as Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg, Riki Wilchins and countless others mobilized many transgender spectrum folks, and won over many feminist and queer allies, by positioning the transgender community as the cutting edge of a much broader movement to shatter the gender binary. In 1999, Wilchins and other transgender activists took this approach to MWMF, where they revived Camp Trans (after a five-year hiatus) and challenged the "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy on the basis that it is rooted in outdated, binary assumptions about gender.
The idea that transgender identities and expression subvert the gender binary did much to increase transgender-inclusion within feminist and queer spaces. However, this approach did not benefit all transgender people equally. Because transgender-inclusion was explicitly linked to gender transgression and subverting the gender binary, those individuals who did not identify within the gender binary -- for example, people who are genderqueer, gender-fluid, or who engage in "genderfuck" (purposefully playing or screwing with gender expression and presentation) -- tended to be most celebrated, whereas transsexuals -- especially those who identify within the binary and who appear gender-normative and/or heterosexual post-transition -- frequently still had their motives and identities questioned.
It is also common for trans feminine spectrum individuals to be called out for "reinforcing the gender binary" more so than their counterparts on the trans masculine spectrum. This is due, in part, to the fact that female and feminine appearances are more readily and routinely judged in our society than male and masculine ones. And because concepts like "transgression" and "rebellion" tend to be coded as "masculine" in our culture, whereas "conformity" and "conventionality" are typically coded as "feminine," there is an unspoken bias that leads masculine transgender expression to be seen as more inherently transgressive than feminine transgender expression. Indeed, such unconscious presumptions about masculinity and femininity have surely contributed to the tendency exhibited by many feminists to praise women who engage in traditionally "masculine" endeavors, while expressing anywhere from apathy to antagonism toward men who engage in traditionally "feminine" endeavors. In fact, one could make the case that historically feminism has been predisposed toward "trans-masculinism" -- that is, favoring gender transgression in the masculine direction.
Not coincidently, perhaps the biggest change in lesbian and queer women's communities since the rise of queer theory and transgender activism has been a growing influx of trans men and others on the trans masculine spectrum, many of whom date and/or are partnered to non-trans queer women. While trans men are not officially allowed in MWMF, many still attend anyway (as the festival has essentially had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gender identity for much of the last decade). The significant attendance of trans male/masculine folks led one trans masculine attendee in 2000 to remark that the festival was "the largest female-to-male trans conference I have ever seen in my life." The festival not only accommodates such individuals, but has invited trans masculine musical artists who go by the pronoun "he" to perform on the festival stage. It has also become increasingly common for MWMF supporters to claim that the festival is a place for those who have grown up female in a patriarchal society, an interpretation that conveniently enables trans men to attend but not trans women. Indeed, this growing inclusion of trans men has not yielded a similar inclusion of trans women; in fact, many feel that it has only served to make trans women more invisible and irrelevant within queer women's communities.
Trans-Misogyny, Intersectionality and "Second Wave" Transgender Activism
I personally became involved in the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue in 2003 when I attended Camp Trans. This was a turning-point year for the protest, as organizers began to make a purposeful effort to focus specifically on working toward trans woman-inclusion (rather than "transgender-inclusion" more generally) and to try to shift the dynamics of the protest from one that favored trans men and others on the trans masculine spectrum to one that is equally welcoming of, and empowering for, trans women. It was there that I first had in-depth conversations with other trans women about how people on the trans feminine spectrum tend to be more routinely derided and demonized -- both in mainstream society and within lesbian and queer women's spaces like MWMF -- than our trans masculine counterparts. It was clear to many of us that this phenomenon was not simply the result of the fact that we "transgress gender norms" (something both trans masculine and trans feminine folks do). Rather, it seemed to be driven more by traditional sexism -- that is, the presumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior to, or less legitimate than, maleness and masculinity.
Over the last five years, trans feminine feminists have begun to articulate a new perspective on feminism and trans activism that better captures our own experiences dealing with sexism. This approach is not so much rooted in queer theory as it is in intersectionality -- a theory that grew out of the work of feminists of color, most thoroughly chronicled by Patricia Hill Collins, and perhaps first discussed in relation to the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue by Emi Koyama. Intersectionality states that different forms of oppression do not act independently of one another, but rather they interact synergistically. Unlike queer theory and lesbian-feminism, intersectionality focuses primarily on the ways in which people are institutionally marginalized, rather than fixating on whether any given individual's identity or behaviors "reinforce" or "subvert" the gender system.
According to this view, trans women lie at the intersection of (at least) two types of sexism. The first is cissexism, which is the societal-wide tendency to view transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments as being less legitimate than those of cissexuals -- that is, nontranssexuals. (Note: the word "cisgender" is similarly used as a synonym for nontransgender.) Cissexism functions in a manner analogous to heterosexism: Transsexual gender identities and homosexual/bisexual orientations are both typically viewed as being inherently questionable, unnatural, morally suspect, and less socially and legally valid than their cissexual and heterosexual counterparts. Not only does cissexism institutionally marginalize transsexual individuals, but it privileges cissexuals, rendering their genders and sexed bodies as unquestionable, unmarked and taken for granted (similar to how heterosexual attraction and relationships are privileged in our culture).
While all transsexuals face cissexism, trans women experience this form of sexism as being especially exacerbated by traditional sexism. For example, trans women are routinely hyper-sexualized in our society, especially in the media, where we are regularly depicted as fetishists, sexual deceivers, sex workers and/or in a sexually provocative fashion (trans men, in contrast, are not typically depicted in this way). The common presumption that trans women transition to female for sexual reasons seems to be based on the premise that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. Furthermore, most of the societal consternation, ridicule and violence directed at trans people focuses on individuals on the trans feminine spectrum -- often specifically targeting our desire to be female or our feminine presentation. While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way -- to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question. Thus, those of us on the trans feminine spectrum don't merely experience cissexism or "transphobia" so much as we experience trans-misogyny.
Trans feminine perspectives on sexism have shaken up the dynamics of long-standing feminist debates about trans individuals and inclusion. For example, lesbian-feminist critiques of queer theory and transgender activism have charged that focusing primarily on transgressing or blurring the distinction between "woman" and "man" does nothing to address the affect that traditional sexism has on women's lives. Trans feminine feminists typically agree with this lesbian-feminist critique and further extend it to address the many ways in which traditional sexism impacts our own lives, both as women and as trans women.
Trans feminine feminists have also taken issue with the ways in which others have defined and positioned us in the MWMF inclusion debate. For example, queer theorists and transgender activists often argue for inclusion on the basis that transgender people transgress or subvert the gender binary. Trans women have challenged this approach for being both masculine-centric (as it favors trans masculine individuals) and cissexist (as the presumption that we blur or subvert the gender binary is the direct result of people viewing us as "fake" and "illegitimate" women in the first place). Lesbian-feminists, on the other hand, typically argue that trans women should be denied entrance into women-only spaces such as MWMF because we were born and socialized male. These claims are also masculine-centric (as they emphasize supposedly "male/masculine" aspects of our history over our female identities and lived experiences as women) and cissexist (as they presume that our female identities are less legitimate than those of cissexual women).
Trans feminine feminists have also countered the way in which MWMF has increasingly co-opted queer/transgender rhetoric in recent years in its defense of its trans woman-exclusion policy. For example, a 2006 MWMF press release described "womyn-born-womyn" as "a valid and honorable gender identity." This statement seems to takes advantage of the transgender activist claim that there are countless possible gender identities, each of which should be equally respected. However, it fails to recognize who the privileged majority is in this case (cissexual women/"womyn-born-womyn") and who the marginalized minority is (transsexual women). Thus, MWMF's statement is analogous to the hypothetical situation of heterosexual women declaring that "straight woman" is a valid gender identity in order to justify excluding lesbian and bisexual women from an event in which all other women are welcome. Most MWMF supporters would undoubtedly recognize such an approach as being unquestionably heterosexist; by the same reasoning, MWMF's trans woman-exclusion policy is unquestionably cissexist. MWMF has also asserted that the festival is not "transphobic" because plenty of transgender people attend, or because it is "home to womyn who could be considered gender outlaws" (an apparent reference to Kate Bornstein's binary-shattering book Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us). While this strategy gives the appearance of accommodating queer/transgender perspectives, it does not address the concerns of trans feminine feminists, who believe that the festival's policy is primarily cissexist and trans-misogynistic/trans-masculinist (as it is excludes trans women while accommodating trans male/masculine folks).
A recognition of trans-misogyny/trans-masculinism -- both within queer and feminist settings, and in society at large -- has led many trans women and trans male allies to critique the growing numbers of trans men who, despite their physical transitions and the fact that they now live as men, still feel entitled to inhabit lesbian and women's spaces. Such individuals will often justify their continued presence in such spaces by citing their female history, or claiming that they don't feel 100 percent like a "man" (even though their appearance definitely reads "man"). Such claims reinforce the popular misconception that transsexual gender identities should not be taken seriously, and thus has had a direct negative impact on trans women's inclusion in these same spaces. In a sense, these trans men seem to want to have it both ways: being men in the male-centered mainstream and then being "not-men" in queer/women's/feminist spaces. This places trans women in no-win situation: We are treated as second-class citizens in the male-centered mainstream because we are women, and then further derided for supposedly being privileged, infiltrating "men" in queer/feminist/women's spaces.
This growing "gender gap" between trans masculine and trans feminine communities is not unique to the MWMF trans woman-exclusion debate, but can be seen in other areas of transgender activism. While trans men used to be a minority in the trans community, over the last 15 years their numbers have significantly increased and, in many cities and college campuses, they have come to dominate transgender organizations and activism. This prominence is often enabled by the trans-masculinist leanings of feminist and queer activism (which tend to be suspicious of, or less welcoming toward, trans women both before and after our transitions). Trans men also enjoy significant social advantages over trans women, both because they physically tend to "pass" as cissexuals more often and more easily than trans women, and because of the male privilege they experience post-transition. Trans women -- especially those who transition at a young age and who thus do not benefit significantly from male privilege pre-transition -- have more difficulties finding and maintaining employment, are more susceptible to poverty, and are more likely to engage in survival sex work to make ends meet. There is a growing sense among many trans women that previous models of transgender activism have largely ignored these trans female/feminine-specific issues in a manner similar to how progressive movements during the 1960s largely ignored woman-specific issues, and how the gay rights movement of the 1970s and 1980s largely ignored lesbian-specific issues.
Trans feminine feminists are not the only group critiquing the "first wave" of transgender activism for ignoring the ways in which transgender issues are often intertwined with, and exacerbated by, other forms of oppression. Since the early 2000s, a number of organizations -- such as the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, TransJustice, Trans/Gender Variant in Prison and others -- have begun to focus specifically on the needs of trans people of color, trans people of low income, and those who are incarcerated -- all of whom are especially vulnerable to gender regulation and oppression due to living at the intersection of racism, classism and sexism. As a testament to the importance of intersectionality, a GenderPAC report on violence against gender non-conforming youth showed that the vast majority of the victims were of color, poor or on the trans feminine spectrum (and very often, all three). Activists like Viviane Namaste and Mirha-Soleil Ross have pointed out that trans sex workers -- typically poor trans women and trans feminine spectrum individuals -- receive little to no attention or support from mainstream transgender organizations, activists and academics, despite the fact that they are arguably the most marginalized segment of the transgender community. Other activists, such as Monica Roberts -- who blogs under the name TransGriot and who is one of the organizers of the annual Transsistahs and Transbrothas Conference -- have written extensively about how mainstream transgender organizations routinely fail to acknowledge issues that disproportionately affect trans people of color. Just as universalizing views of womanhood that existed within "second wave" feminism were challenged by "third wave" feminists, the universalizing view of transgender people forwarded in the 1990s (which tended to ignore differences with regard to race, class and direction of transition and/or transgender expression) have increasingly been called into question by this "second wave" of transgender activism.
Given the violence and extreme poverty that afflicts many trans people, some have suggested that the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue has received an undeserved amount of activist attention. And the fact that tickets to this weeklong festival cost several hundred dollars -- a luxury many trans folks cannot afford -- is often cited by those who view MWMF's policy as primarily a middle-class trans issue. While MWMF is not the most pressing trans-related issue out there, such critiques miss the larger picture. This is not about the desire to simply attend one music festival. Rather, for lesbian and bisexual trans women, this is about us being able to participate in our own queer women's community -- a community in which we face anywhere from antagonism to irrelevancy on a regular basis.
Perhaps more importantly, this is about us being able to have a voice within feminism more generally. MWMF is not only the world's largest annual women-only event, but historically it's been a focal point for dialogues and debates on a wide range of feminist issues. As someone who has experienced firsthand the substantial difference between what it's like to be treated as a woman and as a man, and who now experiences both misogyny and trans-misogyny in my day-to-day life, I have found feminism to be an indispensable foundation for me to make sense of my experiences and to articulate the obstacles and issues that I face. For many of us who are trans women, this is about having a voice in a movement that is incommensurably vital to us.
For years, trans women have effectively had no voice in MWMF. During that time, many cissexual women and trans masculine attendees have tried to advocate on our behalf inside the festival. While their intensions may have been sincere, the fact that they entered into a space that excludes trans women, and that they claimed to speak for us (despite not having had a trans female/feminine life experience themselves), their actions further contributed to the erasure of our voices and perspectives. While the "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy remains in effect to this day, MWMF stopped formally expelling trans women from the festival in 2006 (although they still insist that any trans woman who attends is "choosing to disrespect the stated intention of this festival"). While the situation is hardly perfect, it does for the first time allow trans women to speak in their own voices within MWMF. And that's a crucial part of any feminist or activist movement: to allow those who have been marginalized, disenfranchised and excluded to be able to define themselves, and to speak in their own voices about the struggles they face and the way they experience their own lives.
07:17 AM in Feminism, Gay civil rights, Transgender | Permalink | Comments (8)
Jun 16, 2008
I DO!
Congratulations to the people of the State of California on this historic day! How cool is it that Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin get to be at the head of the line? 55 years together. In their 80s. Legally married. Damn. How often have I heard people say "I know it's inevitable, justice always is; but I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime"? I'm so happy for them. And, truly, for all of us.
It really is a step toward that inevitable justice.
06:36 AM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Jun 03, 2008
Obama for President!
Barack Obama sealed up the nomination tonight. I am inspired by him and excited about the possiblity of seeing him in the White House. Now, I just have to figure out how I can best support his candidacy and get him into the Presidency and keep Bush McCain out.
Oddly, I am also saddened today at the end of Hillary Clinton's campaign. No matter how you slice it today is an historic day. I would have been proud to support her for the Presidency. I *am* proud to support Obama!
Let's win in November!
10:34 PM in Current Affairs, Feminism, Gay civil rights, Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Jun 02, 2008
PRIDE!
Yesterday was June 1, the beginning of Pride month here in the U.S. and the day of Motor City Pride held each year in Ferndale (and sponsored by Triangle Foundation).
Rainbow Law Center had its first booth at Motor City Pride this year. We tried not to make it too elaborate. Instead we wanted to offer real help to clients and potential clients. Consequently, we did not offer give-aways and we did not attempt to collect names and contact information in order to build a mailing list.
What we did, instead, was offer free 15 minute legal consultations to whomever asked. We helped out a half-dozen individuals or couples with real-life problems, free of charge.
In addition, we developed some marketing-oriented handouts which we hoped would also be educational and we handed out over 50 packets of information to people. That seems like a small number when you think about 30,000 attendees, but it was very good from our perspective. Copies of our handouts are here:
Download medical_power_of_attorney_faq.pdf
Download employment_law_basics_for_lgbt_employees.pdf
Download last_will_faq.pdf
Download Testimonials.pdf
Download deb_price_column.pdf
We will next be at Michigan Pride in Lansing on 6/28 and then OutFest in Ann Arbor on 9/13.
We wish all our LGBT family a happy Pride Month!
09:43 PM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 26, 2008
How do I love thee?
You all know I'm a veteran. I'm proud of my service. I consider myself a patriot (this in apparent direct contradiction to my belief that nationalism is a crime most heinous). But, I abhor war. I believe, sincerely, that there must be another way. I don't know what that way is. I'm not enough of a student of history to know if there were alternatives to war in WWII. With my limited (and state supplied) education on the subject, it appears to me that there was no alternative and I'm glad we fought and I'm glad we won (having said that I strongly disagree with the tactics of bombing Japanese cities with nuclear weapons).
So, when Memorial Day rolls around each year, I'm torn. I want to express my patriotism, but I also don't want to feed the death-for-glory culture we have created. I believe that dissent and protest are patriotic. Still, I recognize that my version of patriotism isn't the only version, and certainly not the only right version. The minister at the church I attend reminded us that Monday was Memorial Day, a day to remember those who died so we could be free. But, then, he went on to say that people are still dying today so that we can be free. I disagree with that. I have been opposed to this war since before its inception. Our young men and women are not dying today so that we can be free. They are dying to satisfy whatever appetites held by those in power today in this country. But, they are dying.
One such young man was Major Alan Rogers. I found his story at the SLDN blog. He was a patriot, who died doing the job they sent him to Iraq to do. He did more than merely follow 
orders. He shielded two other soldiers from the blast of an exploding IED, saving their lives. He was respected and honored. But, as one officer who served with him said -- "There was so much about Alan I never knew." Indeed. Alan was a gay officer and his country required him to lie in order to serve.
The story was written by a friend of mine who works at SLDN. She writes:
Why does it matter? Why should anyone need to know that Alan Rogers, an American patriot who died doing what he loved most – serving our country – also happened to be gay?
It matters because in our country the law says that gay people who want to serve in our nation’s Armed Forces have to conceal their identity for the privilege of doing so. And as a result, thousands of very good, fair, and decent straight service members have no idea how many of the phenomenal people they work with every day also happen to be gay. This invisibility creates an environment of complacency about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and what it requires of gay Americans in uniform. And change does not happen in an environment of complacency.
To honor him on this day, I give you this link and ask you to read his story. This is how I choose to honor Memorial Day. I hope you do, too.
08:26 AM in Current Affairs, Gay civil rights, Politics | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
May 15, 2008
Marriage Equality in California!
Rainbow Law Center joins the rest of the country who values fairness and equality in applauding the decision of the California Supreme Court today in the "In re: Marriage Cases" when it said:
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation,""...we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand."
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
--Mildred Loving, June 12, 2007
02:45 PM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Feb 20, 2008
Gay and Married -- in New York
Jami posted a question in comments about a ruling from New York state's highest court that said (unanimously) that the state must recognize marriages between same-sex couples performed in jurisdictions -- specifically Canada -- where it's legal. She referenced this article on the ACLU's website. She asked me what I thought of the ruling; I'll try and give a summary of my thoughts.
First, I want to be clear that marriage is not the be-all, end-all with respect to gay civil rights, in my book. Frankly, I think marriage as an institution carries too much power in our culture and I don't think it's fair or reasonable basis upon which to allocate benefits, privileges and obligations. That said, I chose to get married (also in Canada) and I completely believe that allowing some couples to marry and not others is invidious discrimination and needs to be stopped.
I think, therefore, that it probably goes without saying that I think the ruling itself is correct and overdue (Download new_york_ruling_on_canadian_marriage.pdf).
Essentially, the court said that just because a marriage wouldn't be valid if solemnized in New York didn't stop the state from recognizing it if it were valid where performed. It cited several instances where such marriages had been recognized in the state's history (including a marriage between an uncle and a niece, performed in another US state (not able to be performed in New York because of statutes regarding consanguinity) and a marriage between an opposite sex couple that were under 18 when legally married in Canada (not able to be performed in New York because of statutes proscribing the legal age to marry as 18 or over)).
The court gave two reasons under which it could have found the marriage between same-sex couples invalid - a statute explicitly prohibiting recognition of such marriages (what the court called "positive law") or if such marriages are prohibited by something called "natural law". The defendants in the case argued that the marriage should be prohibited as against the strong public policy of the State of New York. It is the court's treatment of the last two issues that interest me the most.
First, the court gave short shrift to the idea of same sex marriages being against the "natural law". It noted that in order to prohibited under this rubric, a marriage would need to be "offensive to the public sense of morality to a degree regarded generally with abhorrence" and simply stated that such a case "cannot be said here", limiting that exception instead primarily to incest or polygamy. Personally, from a cultural standpoint, I think this is huge. It is not that long ago that it would have been this ground upon which a ruling against this couple would have been issued.
Second, the court noted that New York "unlike the overwhelming majority of states" had not enacted a mini-DOMA (legislation denying full faith and credit to same-sex marriages validly solemnized in another state). This, stating the obvious, is the part of the ruling that goes to whether or not this decision in one state can be duplicated in another. It is not the mere enactment of a mini-DOMA upon which a state can rely to deny equal recognition to otherwise valid marriages, such as this one, but it is strong evidence that a state can rely upon to prove its claim that such recognition would be violative of the state's public policy. If a state's population feels so strongly that it should deny these rights to a class of people that its elected legislature passes such a law (or, worse, a constitutional amendment) a court will almost certainly view that as dispositive. UNLESS, a plaintiff can win her case by striking down such a law as a violation of the US constitution. Therein lies the hope that this ruling in New York could eventually spread to those states whose populace have enacted such hateful and discriminatory law. And, for those states that have not enacted such law, citing to this case in New York, while not providing any binding precedent, can only be helpful.
Way to go, New York!
Does that answer your question about what I think, Jami? And, y'all should check out Jami's post regarding civil unions. No, they are NOT marriage.
08:40 AM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Feb 07, 2008
Creating Change and the City of Detroit
As my Girl and I prepare to attend the 20th anniversary of Creating Change to be held in Detroit this week, it is with great excitement that we read the following announcement from Triangle Foundation (full disclosure, I was just named to Triangle Foundation's Board of Trustees).
As an aside, it is amazing to me how many of our lesbian friends, and clients, have never heard of Creating Change. Admittedly, I only asked 3 couples but not one of those six women had heard of it. Is it the middle-age demographic? This will be my third one and I'm quite excited. Last night, we went to The Ark in Ann Arbor and watched Kate Clinton. Damn, she's good.
Detroit City Council Welcomes Creating Change,
Supports Transgender Rights
On February 5, the Detroit City Council passed a two-part resolution opposing discrimination against transgender individuals and welcoming the National Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality, Creating Change. Creating Change is bringing more than 2,000 LGBT and allied activists to the Renaissance Center Feb. 6-10.
Triangle Foundation, the state's leading anti-violence and advocacy organization, and the ACLU of Michigan's LGBT Project, have worked closely with City Council to include gender identity and expression in the city's anti-discrimination ordinances.
"I can't think of a better time for City Council to pass this resolution than the eve of Creating Change," said Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for Triangle. "We will continue working with the ACLU to help Council translate this resolution into an ordinance that will protect Detroit's transgender residents, workers and visitors - like the ones coming this week for Creating Change."
“We applaud the City Council’s passage of a resolution welcoming the Creative Change Conference and its statement that it opposes gender identity or expression discrimination," said Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the LGBT Project. "When it passed its human rights ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in 1978, the City of Detroit demonstrated that it was a leader among major United States cities in its commitment to diversity and equal opportunity. It’s only appropriate that 30 years later, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has chosen the City of Detroit as its host for the Creating Change Conference, where LGBT activists and allies from around the country will convene to work towards full equality and opportunity for LGBT people."
06:35 AM in Current Affairs, Gay civil rights, Transgender | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Nov 11, 2007
Veteran's Day 2007
I've written before about my feelings toward Veteran's Day and my honoring of veterans. I've also written before about my feelings toward Don't Ask, Don't Tell (long-time readers may even recall that I worked for the ServiceMembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) one summer). Like Jami, I served aboard a United States submarine during Vietnam. But, in the 31 years that I've been OUT of the Navy, yesterday was the first time that I donned my uniform and marched in a Veteran's Day parade (we had to add a gusset to the side of the uniform blouse and I had to bind my breasts (how *do* the guys tolerate that?), but I poured myself into it). In case you can't see what's on my chest, it's a pair of submarine dolphins, a "National Defense" ribbon, a Vietnam service ribbon, and a Diesel Boats Forever (unauthorized) pin.
But, of course, I was not content to merely march. My Girl calls me a "pot-stirrer" (I think she means that as a compliment). So I marched, but I also carried a sign I made calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. (If you click on the photos it will enlarge them and you can actually read the sign -- it says "Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Honor ALL Veterans; 1,000,000 Gay and Lesbian Veterans; 65,000 Now Serving").
The day was cold and windy with an occassional drizzle. As a consequence, I believe the veterans marching outnumbered the people watching. I'm not sure, but that may have been a good thing. No one said a single negative word to me. I discovered something that I wasn't prepared for, though. I hate war; I oppose the Iraq war; I think we should stop builidng monuments to the war dead or calling the best of our killers "heroes". I do. I believe all that. But, to my surprise, I discovered a welling of pride as I marched, as I saluted the flag during the national anthem and as I stood there with the 50 or so other veterans. When "Taps" played, I cried, just as I always have (whatever else is said or done at my funeral, I hope they will play that call).
After the parade, and after the (incredibly boring) speechifying, the veterans lined up in a sort of "receiving line" and the crowd filed past and shook each of our hands and thanked us for our service. It was very nice. Several people grabbed my hand with both of theirs and squeezed it. A couple of the old codgers said "If they'd had such pretty women serving when I was in, I would have stayed in" (some people are just clueless). And a couple of people even mentioned that they supported the repeal. I don't know if it made one tiny bit of difference in anybody's thinking, but I was there and I was happy and proud to have been so. Oh, I almost forgot. Both the Detroit Free Press and our local paper printed my letter (the Free Press edited it considerably)!
Also! Check out this post on SLDN's blog:
[T]he Veteran Affairs (VA) Boston Healthcare System has issued a landmark memo to its employees about providing quality care to transgender veterans who use the medical facility.
According to Bay Windows, "The memo mandates that veterans will be addressed and referred to by VA staff according to their self-identified gender both in verbal exchanges and in patient records. Patients will also be given rooming assignments and access to facilities such as restrooms based on their self-identified gender. The memo explains that while federal law prevents the VA from providing patients with sex reassignment surgery, the VA will provide hormone therapy and mental health services to transgender patients according to the accepted standards of care."
06:39 PM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Nov 08, 2007
Mixed Emotions
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed the House of Representatives yesterday, by a largely partisan vote of 235-184. The Act, which protects workers from job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, passed without the transgender inclusive language which would have protected American workers on the basis of their gender identity or expression.
I have mixed emotions about this bill. On the one hand, I am terribly proud of the US House of Representatives for finally passing this law which could protect millions of people from unwarranted discrimination in the workplace. This bill was first introduced (sans transgender protections then, as well) in the 1970s. Passage of it has been a long time in the making. Given the shift to the right we have witnessed in this country in the past several years (or perhaps just the shift in rhetoric), it took some courage on the part of these legislators to vote for a "Pro-gay" bill.
On the other hand, I am deeply disappointed that these same legislators decided to bring this bill to the floor at this time. I believe them when they say they did not have the votes to pass a transgender inclusive bill. I also believe the pundits who say that this bill, now passed in one house, will not make it into law during this session of Congress. Either it will not get past the Senate, or the President will veto it. So, why introduce a bill that only protects a part of the LGBT population? Why not wait until after the elections next year when it is more likely we'll have a President who is more compassionate toward Americans?
I am very proud to have been among the very first transgender Americans to have walked the halls of Congress to help educate our Senators and Representatives about what it means to be transgender. I attended the very first "National Lobby Day" and each of the 5 succeeding ones and have met with literally dozens of congress people and their staffs over the years. Most of them had never heard the word "transgender" before meeting me or my fellow lobbyists. To hear our rights debated on the floor of the House of Representatives was a stirring moment for me. I only wish it had been a debate about including us in the family of Americans, instead of reinforcing our exclusion.
08:22 AM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Nov 01, 2007
Letter to the Editor - DADT
The following is a letter I just submitted to both our local newspaper and Detroit's Free Press. In additon, I plan to march in our local parade, wearing my rainbow colors and carrying a placard calling for the end of Don't Ask; Don't Tell:
Dear Editor
I am a Vietnam-era veteran (US Navy Submarine Service) who served honorably for 4 years. I’m a member of our local American Legion post. I’m a resident and homeowner in _____. I’m also a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community. I am very proud of all these affiliations.
In many of our communities, we have a tradition of having a parade on Veterans’ Day. As we march, or enjoy and pay tribute to those who are marching, we should not forget the 65,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans currently serving in the US Armed Forces, and the one million gay veterans, who have bravely served our country while being forced to lie and hide who they are. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” requires gay service members to hide the truth about who they are, which runs counter to the military’s ideals of honesty and integrity, or face discharge.
Since its inception, we have discharged over 11,000 qualified soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines for the mere fact of their sexual orientation. Even during time of war, we still fire an average of 2 people a day – including dozens of Arabic linguists and hundreds of people with skills for which the military is experiencing critical shortages – from their service to our country. Meanwhile, we are lowering the standards for enlistment in a desperate effort to maintain sufficient troop levels, ignoring that there are thousands of highly-qualified LGBT people in this country who would readily enlist if they could do so openly.
There is no legitimate reason for banning gays from serving openly in the military. Some of our closest and most loyal allies, including those fighting alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, allow gays to serve openly in their militaries. Currently 24 countries allow gays and lesbians to openly serve. Studies regarding the integration of gays into the militaries of Australia, Israel, Britain and Canada have shown that it does not alter their effectiveness in any way. Moreover, many distinguished members of our own military, such as the late Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr., a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Wesley Clark, have criticized the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
With Veterans’ Day approaching, please take a minute not only to recognize the service of ALL of our veterans, but also to voice your support for the end of “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell”. No other law mandates firing someone because of their sexual orientation. Tell your Representative and Senator that you support the repeal of “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” because gay servicemembers and veterans deserve our respect just as much as their comrades; they should not be treated as second class citizens.
11:38 AM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Oct 06, 2007
United ENDA
As a member of the board for the Washtenaw Rainbow Action Project (WRAP), I was proud to sign onto the following press release (I might have had a hand in writing it):
WRAP Opposes Stripped-down Version of ENDA
The Washtenaw Rainbow Action Project (WRAP) today announced that it will support only the original Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and will oppose any modified bill that purports to protect a part of our community at the expense of another.
As you may already know, the struggle for the passage of ENDA has been a long one. Many of us have lobbied for years, even decades, for this simple justice. But it cannot be justice if we leave the most vulnerable of our constituency behind. The incremental approach to rights sounds plausible, but it rarely works. In 1990, with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) assured passage, an amendment to exclude HIV+ food workers was added at the last minute. The leaders of the disability rights movement would have none of it. At the risk of losing the protections they had worked lifelong to achieve, they stood firm. All of us, or none of us. As a result, HIV-positive workers who handle food are covered by the ADA to this day.
WRAP is proud to join the growing list of organizations that oppose this politically-motivated, misguided effort by the House leadership to weaken our community through divisive means. Doing so sends the wrong message – to our own community, to the power brokers in Congress, and to society-at-large. Among the list of organizations that oppose the stripped-down version of ENDA are the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, hosts of Creating Change, Lambda Legal, and Michigan’s own Triangle Foundation and Michigan Equality. For a complete and up-to-date list of the over 150 organizations please visit www.UnitedENDA.org.
WRAP urges you to contact your United States Representative today – right now – and tell them you support only the original, inclusive version of H.R. 2015. The Representative for Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and eastern Washtenaw County is Congressman John Dingell and you can contact him at (734) 481-1100, or email him at public.dingell@mail.house.gov. For western Washtenaw County, your representative is Congressman Tim Walberg and he can be contacted at (517) 780-9075.
The WRAP Board of Directors
Michael G. McGuire, President
Jeremy Merklinger, Vice-President
Jim Toy, Secretary
Barry MacDougal, Treasurer
Denise Brogan-Kator
Jim Fuester
11:28 PM in Gay civil rights, Transgender | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Sep 20, 2007
Gender Identity or Expression at the University of Michigan
Well, after years of effort and pressure, it looks like the Regents of the University of Michigan will vote today to finally amend the University’s bylaws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression (see President Mary Sue Coleman's motion here).
This is something I, and many other activists, have worked on for a long time. It was something that was first brought to the administration’s attention over 10 years ago by a friend of mine, Jim Toy and an ally our movement knows well, Sandra Cole. In 2004, the year I started law school here, the administration assigned to the Provost’s office the task of measuring the climate for the TBLG community on campus and making recommendations as to how best improve it. The task force was headed by another friend of mine and professor at the law school, Bruce Frier. The task force’s first recommendation, when its report was published later that year was that bylaw 14.06 be modified to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Although the University adopted many other of the recommendations, the Regents refused to adopt that first one.
Over the 3 years that I was in law school, I lobbied the Regents heavily for this change (including public speaking, marches and protests on campus, and private meetings with individual Regents). Today, they will finally vote on the amendment and I’m told it will pass. I was contacted by the Administration and asked to be present for the vote and to be prepared to make some remarks.
I know that, in the scheme of all that is going on around the country and the slow progress we are making, this isn’t a momentous occasion. Nevertheless, a lot of people worked to make this University a safe place for all people, regardless of their gender identity or how they express that identity. Today, we will take an important step in that direction, and I wanted to share it with you.
[UPDATE] The measure passed 5-2 (with the one missing Regent submitting a letter into the record indicating (eloquently, I might add) his strong endorsement of the amendment). It was a pleasure and an honor for me to be there for the vote. The Regents were all very gracious to me and many thanked me (and other activists present) personally.
12:18 PM in Gay civil rights, Law School, Politics, Transgender | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Apr 02, 2007
And *WE'RE* Immoral?!
I was unable to attend this year's Servicemembers Legal Defense Network annual dinner due to my mom's illness. However, I wanted to see what happened so I hopped on over to SLDN's blog and followed a link back to Pam's House Blend who has a wonderful recap of the whole evening. Then, perusing SLDN's site a bit more, I came across this story.
A recruiter reached out to a gay black man after he posted his resume on CareerBuilder.com and, after discovering he was gay, sent the following in a series of emails:
Using a military email address, U.S. Army recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode fired off an email in capital letters that " IF YOU ARE GAY WE DON'T TAKE YOU. YOU ARE CONSIDERED UNQUALIFIED."
...
Andrew, who is black, criticized Ramode's word choices and poor spelling. In response, the apparently enraged sergeant said in graphic language that Andrew should "GO BACK TO AFRICA AND DO YOUR GAY VOODOO LIMBO TANGO AND WANGO DANCE AND JUMP AROUND AND PRANCE AND RUN ALL OVER THE PLACE HALF NAKED THERE."
SLDN has called for the immediate dismissal of Sgt. Ramode. I don't think the Army does anything on an immediate basis, but she certainly deserves dismissal. And the recruiting command needs some serious training in human relations.
I know, objectively, that people think this way, but I am always amazed when they allow their bigotry to show. I also know the Army's hard up in its recruiting efforts, but you'd think a test of common sense might be administered. What a complete and utter ______ (fill in the blank with your appropriate epithet).
06:34 AM in Gay civil rights | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Apr 01, 2007
Poll - AFA style
I haven't posted a poll in a while; and this is the first ever American Family Association poll I've ever posted, so I thought now was the time to correct those oversights. :)
Results as my taking the poll on 4/1/07 at 7:45 EDT:
 |
If a corporation supports the homosexual agenda, you would:
Be more likely to do business with that company.
Be less likely to do business with that company.
It would not affect my buying decision.
07:45 PM in Gay civil rights, Internet Quizzes, Polls | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
