Vic Basile, former executive director of HRC, told a group of Equality Maryland supporters this week that gays should embrace incremental change with regard to ENDA. (Blade photo by Henry Linser)
MORE INFO Vic Basile is the outgoing executive director of Moveable Feast in Baltimore. He can be reached viamfeast.org
EQUALITY MARYLAND honored Vic Basile, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, with its Pioneer for Equality Award this week. The following is excerpted from Basile’s acceptance speech delivered Sunday at the annual Equality Maryland Jazz Brunch:
It has been my great privilege to have had a front row seat for the past quarter of a century as our movement has gone from near infancy to the unstoppable march for justice and equality it is today. Along the way, I have met and worked with so many amazing people, many of whom, sadly, did not survive the epidemic that ravaged our community. Those of us who did survive reap the rewards of their hard work, their wisdom and their sacrifices.
With those individuals in mind, I want to discuss the issue that has so divided our community for the past several weeks — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. To give context to the conversation on ENDA, I want to begin back in the 1960s, when I was a young VISTA volunteer in the rural and still segregated South. The abject poverty and cruel injustices I witnessed changed me forever and set me on a path I would follow to this very day. Those memories have never left me and they never will.
An important lesson I learned on my political journey is that the road to justice and equality is long, difficult and without end. One need look no further than to the African-American civil rights movement to discover this truth. There were countless defeats before Brown vs. the Board of Education, and even that great milestone was merely a chink in the thick armor of racism.
When the Supreme Court ordered that school integration proceed with all deliberate speed, I doubt that the justices foresaw that years would pass before the first schools were actually integrated and then only after many bloody confrontations. There would be more years and more bloodshed before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and still more time before passage of the Voting Rights Act. As we fight for our rights, we must keep this history in mind.
The late Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first gay civil rights bill in 1974. It is only now, more than 30 years later, that we can envision its actual passage. Even after all this time, the ENDA we see today is a drastically scaled down version of what she first introduced. Her bill included not only protection against employment discrimination, but also in housing, education and public accommodations.
TODAY’S ENDA COVERS only workplace discrimination because all of the political intelligence said that this is what had the best chance of becoming law. This political intelligence recognized — as did our great civil rights leaders, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Bayard Rustin, Congressman John Lewis, and so many others — that political victories come in small, incremental steps. Does that make it right? Absolutely not! It is appalling that any group should have to win its rights one small step at a time. The concept is deeply offensive to our sense of fairness and justice. It is, however, how politics work. If we want to win, we are going to have to accept the concept of incremental progress, frustrating though it may be.
The point is not that we ought to be acquiescent and timid warriors. On the contrary, we must always aggressively push the envelope, while keeping in mind that it took us 33 years to get Congress to seriously consider ENDA. It took African Americans a century to get from emancipation to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And when emancipation finally came, it should have brought the full realization of America’s promise for all African Americans. It didn’t and it still hasn’t.
It does our community an enormous disservice that so many of our leaders have allowed the debate about ENDA to devolve into a great moral crusade. It is not. Rather, it is and ought to be about the best strategy to get everyone — the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community — under the same protective umbrella in the least amount of time.
This is not a debate about leaving anyone behind, as many would have us believe. Framing the debate in such inflammatory terms only serves to divide us. We cannot and will not stop our struggle for equality until all of the GLBT community is protected. From that, there can be no retreat. From that, there will be no retreat.
Those who believe that the best way to reach this important goal is to educate Congress and the public ought not to be vilified as trans-phobic. We must find a way to work together to bring this message to America, just as we did for the past 33 years with sexual orientation: that transgender men and women are their neighbors, their friends, and their loved ones.
WE CAN MAKE it happen faster by working together, resisting the temptation to malign those with whom we disagree and to denounce friendly politicians who can give us only 75 percent of what we deserve. Instead, we take the 75 percent and the very next day, we go back for the rest, not stopping until we are all safely under the same protective umbrella.
The road I have traveled since those early days as a VISTA volunteer has taught me the necessity of tempering my passion and idealism with political wisdom and pragmatism. It has taught me that there are political realities that must be acknowledged and accepted in order to channel our passion into the political victories we deserve. Rather than let those realities dishearten or defeat us, we ought to use them to shape our strategies.
You, I, all of us have a right to expect from our leaders nothing less than passion in the relentless pursuit of justice and equality, leavened and informed by shrewd insight into the workings of the political world. This is how we will ultimately win.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
THB on 11/9/0712:20 AM:
Frankly, I just don't see the need to resort to name calling in this forum. Virtually everyone on here would love to see a fully exclusive ENDA bill pass. But those who have worked for and supported at least some form of ENDA for 33 years since it was first introduced in Congress, even if the bill is not perfect, are not bigots. Let's reserve that word for those who truly deserve it, our right wing enemies.
clintworldwide on 11/8/072:40 PM:
The bottom line is, we are years away from an ENDA protecting trans people. HRC did a poll last year that found less than 40% of Americans supported an ENDA for gender identity when it was explained to them what this meant. Gallup polling shows 90% support for an ENDA banning employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Thousands, maybe millions, of gay and lesbian teachers, police, and nurses in places like Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Mississippi need ENDA now. We can't make them wait for years, perhaps forever, for one bill that also protects transgendered people. The one-bill strategy is the wrong strategy. Also, let's be consistent. Are we going to insist on adding the T to military service, adoption, civil unions/dp/marriage, permanent partner immigration? Trans-people: we really are your friends, we know you face terrible discrimination, and we're still going to stand with you to get you the protection you need. But the incremental strategy is the only one that makes any sense.
Denise on 11/8/071:05 PM:
Now it's all mess and we have to deal with it. Regardless, the LGBT community is here to stay and nothing...not an missed opportunity of an all-inclusive ENDA, Congress, the Junta, or ourselves can deny that. In the end it comes dowm to the old axiom..."United we stand, divided we fall."
marc_salomon on 11/8/0711:31 AM:
There is no such thing as a unified LGBT community, never has been, never will. We come together for campaigns when issues cut across our diversity and even then, never in unity. The HRC is the HRC, and just as not all who support moving whatever ENDA has the support forward now are not HRC members or apologists (I have been a critic of the HRC's conservativism for 10 years) similarly those who support an "all or nothing" ENDA are not all United ENDA members. If they could have passed ENDA with trans protections I believe they would have, but you cannot order members of congress to vote a certain way, they have to be convinced, and apparently there was not enough convincing on the T matter to put the issue over the top. That does not make me happy, but it is no reason to fold the tent on ENDA. That is an indication that more work needs to be done, not that the HRC is any more evil today than it was last year or that United ENDA was correct in threatening to scuttle the entire bill because they hadn't rounded up the votes for T. Again, the issue is not whether we agree on T protections, rather what individual members of Congress believe. Thus, United ENDA's mistake was to attack LGB by threatening ENDA rather than to identify swing members of congress and lobby them to humanize T as worthy of civil rights. As the bill moves through congress, it is a bit late for that kind of thing, but the damage done by United ENDA to the LGBT community will take some time to heal.
Denise on 11/8/073:22 AM:
So much fancy talk from everyone! I too live in LGBT friendly Portland and when I had SRS 5 years ago at age 49, all I wanted to do was blend back into society and bcuz I pass well, I did. But now, HRC does a Repug move, and some people in this blog have written some pretty nasty words about other caring and compassionate human beings...this is unacceptable and deeply disturbs me. I didn't want this fight but now feel it's being foistered upon me. I hate outing myself, but will make the sacrifice for all my LGBT brothers and sisters...not just part of them. BYW...wake up people...the Bush Junta will never allow ENDA to become law...period. Is this worth destroying our unity? Tearing yourselves and our movement to pieces?
Dee on 11/7/0710:40 PM:
The majority rules, no matter who it leaves behind. Many of the comments regarding whether it really matters, are quite true. The members of the T community will have the same obstacles to overcome ENDA or not, it is the fact that they were dropped by one of the organizations they believed in, that is the true disappointment. The T community should tread carefully as they start to develop trust in the future.
11111154 on 11/7/079:00 PM:
As a MtF post-op Transwoman who identifies as lesbian I often find myself trying to step back from all the hyperbole to grasp what has really been going on. Here is what I have observed and include in the many lectures that I give.
"T" has mostly been added to "LGB" to strenghten their numbers when applying for or raising funds, looking to influence by numbers or on the surface appearing as
inclusive. Why do "T" people hang out in gay bars? It's not because we are made to feel welcome believe me. It's because for us it has been a safe haven and we suffer the rude remarks and hard looks to have that.
Let's be honest, "LGB" is about orientation and "T" is about gender identity. Not that orientation does not play a part but primarily we are visibly and read that VISIBLY about our identities.
I am not at all surprised about the outcome of ENDA as given past attitudes of throwing the "T" movement under the train in search of the gay agenda is historic. We are not nor can we all be activists. I work to be present everyday in my larger community and as each person realizes there are no horns, there is no tail we make that "incremental" progress. What really hurts is when those who continue to add "T" to the end of "LGB" diminish us as a group by seperating our struggle to be treated fairly and as equals in the eyes of the law. I understand politics, I understand that change does not come overnight I understand that the glue that holds "LGB" together has broken at the "T".
thunderbird on 11/7/078:45 PM:
we need god back in our wold agion we have taken him out and now we our paying a very hi price. if we don,t see this as a worring from god we will go down the drain. and the things that we won,t to stop will over take us. see how far thay have come? we must stand up together or fall down to there way of life style.god help and bless us.
Jeff-in-SF on 11/7/078:30 PM:
P.S. - I'm a longtime HRC member and financial supporter, but I am considering ending my membership unless HRC can show me that they really do consider trans people as equally important members of the queer community.
Jeff-in-SF on 11/7/078:29 PM:
Those who support HRC's decision to push the version ENDA without gender identity protections have repeatedly used the argument that there are not enough votes in Congress to pass a trans-inclusive bill. How do they know this? Has a poll of legislators been conducted? If so, where can I view the results of the poll?
Unless and until I see some sort of concrete evidence that a trans-inclusive bill is doomed, I will continue to suspect that this argument is baseless and that the real reason for excluding trans people from the bill is based in trans-phobia.
jeri on 11/7/0710:36 AM:
OMG, that was sad. solomnese couldn't remember if he was a lobbyist or a civil rights leader. he was talking to himself before the interview was over. yadda, yadda?, yadda? it was sad.
ZoeB on 11/7/0712:46 AM:
marc_solomon : //There is a naiveté here in assuming that things will stay the same and that things never change. Politics occurs in multivariate space, and that makes it truly rocket science.// As a matter of fact, I *am* a Rocket Scientist BTW. The most important currency an organisation or politician has in such a complicated and changing environment is trustworthiness. Politicians can sometimes get away with it - "Read my Lips..." etc, but only once, and it costs them dearly. You can't go in front of donors and supporters, telling them that this time will be different, that the betrayals of the past won't be repeated, then only 3 weeks later blatantly and obviously repeat them, or you become an irrelevancy. And you're a bit behind the times: the HRC's Joe Solomonese has said that the 2004 HRC policy remains, and if by a miracle the bill passes, HRC will actively oppose it being put into law - presumably by opposing presidential signature(!). See http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3548 where the words he spoke today were recorded. It's in the last few minutes. Now if you believe that the HRC is supporting "incremental change", if you believe that this is not transphobia in action, you must believe him. But if you think as I do that the HRC are a bunch of incompetents who are wasting donors money, saying whatever is "pragmatic" in a panic over such a debacle, then perhaps you should review your opinions.
jeri on 11/6/079:19 PM:
HRC made a statement in 2007 (after the democrats had control of both houses) that they would oppose legislation that was not trans inclusive. HRC and the politicians they endorsed have enjoyed trans support, financial and at the polls, for years. once again, the trans community is betrayed. salomon demeans clark for being naive - because he just can't help but demean someone. when ENDA dosesn't become law he will be making bigoted assertions to clark that it was the "trannies" fault, and that he knew it would happen all along. some things stay the same. it is a good thing that majority of the GLB community is not as spineless, or they would lose trans support. the trans community has - and will continue to - work hard for GLBT rights because it is the right thing to do - in spite of betrayal by solomnese and frank and pelosi. we will prevail. the cowards have already lost - they just aren't wise enough to realize it.
marc_salomon on 11/6/071:53 PM:
There is a naiveté here in assuming that things will stay the same and that things never change. Politics occurs in multivariate space, and that makes it truly rocket science. That is why in politics you get what you can when you can with no regrets because it is always a possibility that things will change and you will get nothing.
stephenclark on 11/6/071:37 PM:
ZoeB, for what it's worth, I criticized HRC at the time for making that statement. (Feel free to check the Blade archives.) I thought it was too soon because I doubted there was a realistic prospect of passing an inclusive bill in the immediate future. I thought much education remained to be done. And I was afraid HRC was cynically making that vow, thinking they'd eventually break it if it became necessary. In their defense, I think they misjudged the future. As I understand it, their 2004 statement was based on the prospect of continued GOP control of Congress for the foreseeable future - a bleak prospect that seemed reasonable in the gay hell of 2004. They thought it would be years and years before ANY version of ENDA could come up for a vote and that by then they'd be able to get an inclusive version through. I honestly don't think they expected Dems suddenly to have control of both Houses after 2006. But their mistake was to assume that things would remain as bleak as they were in 2004. By the same token, however, UnitedENDA makes the mistake of assuming things will remain for the foreseeable future as positive as they seem today. Things look good for the Dems for 2008 right now, but they looked just as good for the GOP back in 2004.
marc_salomon on 11/6/0712:53 PM:
Zoe, look, LGB is the term because that is what is in the legislation, which is back to square one on ENDA because that is what has the votes. LGB deal with the debates over nature, nurture or choice without freaking out. Trans folks should be able deal with a feminist film critique of trans issues without freaking out. It is only a movie. If trans folks are no longer going to remain silent, let them raise their voices to the Congress and state legislators rather than against their nominal sexual minority allies. It is legislators who need the education and convincing, not us, who will rightfully resist calls to put our long awaited rights on hold for a future that might not come for decades. ENDA is long term gain for tens of millions of people. Trans advocates seem poised to dump tens of millions for the short term gain of demonstrating some sort of short term unity amongst paid queer advocates and have no qualms about excoriating and demonizing all who disagree.
ZoeB on 11/6/076:20 AM:
August 7th 2004, HRC official policy statement: “The Human Rights Campaign adopts a policy that we will only support ENDA if it is inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.” It's not the pragatism, for politics is the art of the possible. It's the betrayal. We now know just exactly how much commitments of any kind by the HRC are worth. Also from 2004, and as reported in the Washington Blade : "HRC conducted polls and found that 61 percent of registered voters and 85 percent of gay and lesbian voters support workplace protections based on gender identity and expression.". And now the HRC says that it's just a "radical minority".
ZoeB on 11/6/075:58 AM:
marc_solomon: what it comes down to is simple: is it GLBT or GLB? Your last post answered that question quite clearly. Yet you continue to pretend, because if you don't, you won't be able to look in the mirror. Now TS people can't stop the Unholy Alliance of an influential minority of GLB(no T) and Fundies effectively preventing T rights. Not your intent, I'm sure, but it *is* the effect of your opinions. TS people are not going to remain quiet about it though, as they have done in the past, in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Nevada, and Hawaii. Quite a list, isn't it? You can either be pragmatic, or have a clear conscience. Your choice. It's also ironic that you mention the film "Gendercator" where "Trannies" are depicted as "going along for the ride" with the Fundies. Can you spell "Projection"? Knew you could. My only consolation is that GLBT groups - as opposed to GLB only - have shown such unanimous support. Now I'm Intersexed, straddling the line between IS and TS. Intersexed people have been flying under the radar, trying not to gather attention. We know that we could be of real help in the same-sex marriage area, as we are proof that the legal concept of marriage between a Man and a Woman is biologically ridiculous for a minority. But having seen the way you treat your TS "allies", no thanks. You've proven yourselves to be unprincipled pragmatists who will dump anybody and everybody if you see a short-term gain from it.
marc_salomon on 11/5/0712:42 PM:
Frank's office says Kennedy is doing the work in the Senate and defeat there is by no means a done deal. The Democrats could attach ENDA to a must-pass bill which would entail attendant political costs to Bush, as 2/3 of Americans support ENDA for LGB. But just as Stephen mentions, the Democrats have perfected the art of failure to the level of the spectacle. My read is that the remnants of the American left are the ones pushing United ENDA. And by left I mean organization style, self-ratifying gaggles of group thinkers who believe they are correct on the merits and that they are the vanguard of progressive change. Any challenge to them is a challenge to what they claim they stand for. Any time you get paid activists distanced from those for whom they'd speak, you are going to see a disconnect. Few, if any, of the constituent groups of United ENDA are democratic. ENDA was scuttled not based on any reasoned strategic basis, rather through guilt. That is not esoteric queer theory, rather dysfunctional wishful thinking masquerading as sound political strategic thinking. ENDA for LGB has enjoyed supermajority support from both LGB and the het community at large for more than a decade now. To throw away a chance to make political progress on this now just to score a martyr point in failing, is nothing short of political malpractice.
stephenclark on 11/5/0710:34 AM:
TSCAT, while I agree about November, I disagree about the defeatist attitude regarding this Congress. We should not be lulled into an overconfident assumption about how the Dems will fare next November. As marc intimates, our working assumption should be that Dems will not do any better and may even lose, lest we mistakenly take for granted whatever window may now exist. A thousand things can happen between now and next November, including another terrorist attack, a war with Iran, a Democratic scandal. In 1963, the civil rights movement didn't say, "oh, gee, it's just going to be so hard this Congress to get a bill past the segregationist filibuster in the Senate; let's just wait and see what happens after the 1964 elections." Instead, they worked hard - and accepted lots of compromises - to get a solid civil rights act passed in 1964. Then, with that initial milestone achieved, they comprehensively revised the employment provisions in 1972 - a mere 8 years later - banned age discrimination in 1967 - a mere 3 years later - and passed the initial ban on disability discrimination in 1973 - a mere 9 years later. Indeed, all this activity followed passage of even weaker race bills in 1957 and 1960. This idea that none but a perfect version of ENDA should pass because we'll be forever stuck with the first version that passes is flatly inconsistent with the history of civil rights legislation. We have too many esoteric queer theorists running this movement.
marc_salomon on 11/4/071:12 PM:
If ENDA is indeed the civil rights watershed that some argue it to be, the Democrats, with enough discipline and committment, could attach ENDA to a "must sign" bill, using their legislative position to their advantage. But just as the Democrats have enabled and can't stop this criminal war, I am not counting on them to play to win on ENDA for us, to not snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory next November, nor for the DLC instigated freshman lawmakers to promote any agenda that looks remotely progressive. Thus, given the Democrats' history, the window appears as open now as it will be in the future. Either the Dems are playing to win or we're being manipulated in the same way that the Republicans manipulate the fundies. Of course, the contradiction between the United ENDA position that T MUST be included into ENDA NOW and their position that this is all for naught as the President will veto whatever emerges, raises the question of why United ENDA pulled the emergency brakes on ENDA if this is all academic. As I've seen in San Francisco, so much of the progressive, liberal and LGBT leadership is comprised of submissive bottoms who are not capable of walking in power, just protesting and wallowing in victimhood. The notion of an active top frightens them to no end. The preferred mode is to amplify a dangerous threat and then present themselves as saviors capable of defending victims, reminiscent of the US frontier myth where men saved women from savage threats.
TSCAT on 11/4/0712:26 PM:
All of this discussion is well and good in that it brings out the many different views and positions within the LGBT community and allows for more understanding - or misunderstanding. However, it does not matter which bill might pass the House, none of the bills will be enacted into law in this congress. And, if the numbers in the House do not clearly indicate strong support for the bill passed, the Senate is not going to even bring a bill out. The most important vote on this issue is next November - and will be cast not in congress but at the polling booths across the country.
marc_salomon on 11/4/0711:48 AM:
Stephen, the entire genesis myth can be read as a transformation of humans from nature-bound hunter gatherers to culture-bound sedentary cultivators. This myth in the judeo christian tradition, requires that power accumulate to the patriarch, replicated at each household, so that the unnatural state of human culture power-over nature could become normative. Central to the replication of this power structure was the need for the male of the household to wield power over the women and children--chattle--just as the male wielded power over nature. The taming of the wild to clear the way for patriarchal dominance is why the mosaic laws universally place men as dominant and create structures to institutionalize that. You can read any given law with latitude, but taken together, they represent a clear picture of patriarchal power and control as well as strict punishments for violating those rules. So any sex that does not produce children or at least gratify the patriarch is illegal. All gender expressions must conform to the imperative of ratifying male power over the home, women and nature. But I think that such an encompassing theory is very threatening to some trans activists who, recently, have spent more time in film criticism over "The Gendercator," a feminist film questioning the "maleing" of lesbians and stopping ENDA rather than organizing to add T into ENDA. We are seeing here a reaction to a theoretical threat to the gender theory of *phobia.
marc_salomon on 11/4/0711:07 AM:
John, the argument was made that LGB are not as discriminated against than T. Why might that be? Could it be that many LGB don't violate gender norms while many T do? So if it is all about gender, and we still get oppressed although, as many T have said recently, we are "straight acting," then there has to be something else at work here. I'm game for many different theories, but when one theory does not explain phenomenon, or when phenomenon need to be shoehorned into a theory, then it is time to look for other explanations that are more elegant, not defend it. I find that patriarchy as a theory encompasses sexism against het women who don't submit, homophobia against str8-gendered and queer homos as well as transphobia. Your mileage might vary. Lori, one might argue that gender based theories of oppression separate those of us who don't make much of gender. I do not have the power to separate anyone. But people, acting in the aggregate, are not going to countenance 5% of a group keeping 95% from advancing, especially as they hurl invective about how bad we are. Yes, the feminist argument is not going to be for congressional consumption, but until there is some sort of internal consensus on unifying our oppressions, how can you expect for there to be a consensus presentation to congress? I find dignity by going to work and not being fired because I'm gay, not by losing a vote and a job. The only way you get those protections in the US is incrementally. Period.
jeri_hughes on 11/4/074:51 AM:
So you want to separate the GLBT? And now that you have done that, you are arguing personal theories about sex acts and Levitical proscription with a bigot who refers to transgender individuals with derogatory and condescending emphasis as “trans folk” or exceedingly offensive terms like “trannies”. The phallus is deployed for patriarchy? Don’t bring that argument to the congressman that you want to support 3685. Why can’t you argue for the equality that a just society owes to us all? Where is your dignity? Votes? What does it matter if you have votes and no dignity? The issues we face are not issues of sex or gender - they are about equal employment - basic human rights. We are human beings - sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters. Obviously, you have abandoned the high ground. Your "votes" are going to choke you.
stephenclark on 11/3/0711:13 PM:
marc, I won't belabor the point, because it isn't that critical. But I will say that, according to John Boswell at least, the Levitical proscription to which you refer literally proscribes a man from "lying the lyings of a woman with a man." That sounds like barring men from assuming a woman's sexual role, and that interpretation fits with other Levitical prohibitions that are obsessed with preventing the mixture of things: here men with women's roles. Discerning behind it an intent to maintain patriarchy is a possible, but not compulsory reading. But it seems as though we simply have to agree to disagree about these finer points.
marc_salomon on 11/3/079:45 PM:
Lori, people are going to hate us no matter what. Fewer and fewer as time goes by and we become visible and accepted. Acceptance cannot be decreed no matter how just the underlying case is. There is no central LGBT directorate where a vote has been taken of all LGBT to ratify or not any kind of LGBT community that is capable of acting in unity. There are many LGBT who work on advancing progressive causes, I count myself as one of them, but when it comes to moving federal legislation, you move what you can pass and you do work to move what you can't pass, and you work until you win. It took like 15 years after LGB got their rights in CA for T to get theirs in 2003 because T had a spectacularly effective advocate like Mark Leno championing their cause. LGB did not do the point work on that, T did and LGB supported their work. The same strategy, IMHO, needs to happen federally. You don't win by showing up with good ideas, or whining about how you deserve protections and how oppressed you are, you win by building coalitions that can carry legislation. I don't see LGB as abandoning T, I see the effort to amend ENDA for T was premature politically and winning ANY gay rights in congress as a priority. The best part of when my partner and I walked up the steps at City Hall in SF to get married in Feb 2004 was that we got to pass fundie bigots and say "I'm Adam, he's Steve and we get to get married ain't nothing you can do about it!"
marc_salomon on 11/3/079:37 PM:
The fact is that by passing no bill we save nobody. The fact is that the bill we have protects LGB. The fact is that there is not enough support for T. The fact is that if United ENDA, which came together at lightning speed to urge no bill over the orignal ENDA, the one with the support, prevails and scuttles ENDA, then that will portend significant consequences for any cohesion in any LGBT movement over the next few decades. Without an ERA, I am not sure that equal protection is required based on gender. Electoral and legislative politics is about getting what you can when you can because as political doors open, they also slam shut. In that case, you try to get the most for the most. Patriarchy is the source, gender is one of the tools it uses to exert control. That is why there is tension between feminists incl. lesbians and trans folks over any sexist pressures pushing gender transitioning. Homophobia as springs from the bible is not about gender roles but about sex and enforcing patriarchy through regulating sex. Gender is a rule that expresses that power. Gender is more of how you present and how those cues and appearances indicate what sex one is. Some non-patriarchal cultures have more than two genders and homosex is not taboo. Even i Mexico there are structured ways of incorporating trans that don't generally happen in protestantism. So much of this is culturally specific to the US and that thwarts any efforts at theory.
Lori Buckwalter on 11/3/077:16 PM:
Marc... Regarding the lightning speed of which you speak: As a trans woman who is also a lesbian, and who, over the last 12 years of my life, has worked for trans AND gay rights, I have somehow failed to see the lightning strike. Perhaps I am blinded by the numbers of people whom I have seem pulled down into anger and despair by their perceptions that even those who should know their aspirations for dignity and full inclusion in this culture are capable of turning away in rationalization. I and my partner have lost jobs, housing, safety in public places, our dignity, our hope, our friends and our belief that engagement in the work of coalition building under the definition of LGBT is worth the price. We are susceptible to bias because of the fact that ours is a same-gender relationship, because I am trans and because we dare to speak from our consciences. As a diversity trainer, I have been singled out because my trainings were too sympathetic to the idea that every person deserves the right to all public processes, including the public contract of marriage. Entering my workplace in Portland, I have been cursed one day by religious bigots for getting a marriage license with my partner, and the next day for "being a man in a dress". Still, I understand that my experiences have been mitigated by my racial, economic and class privileges. I guess I have lost my tolerance for the political dissection of moral value that kills the underlying human compassion that gives either life.
stephenclark on 11/3/076:53 PM:
Well, marc, I'll leave to you how you can talk about patriarchy as though it is independent of sex/gender. For me, plenty of straight people do all the same sex acts that gay people do; the difference being the sex of the people they do them with. When you're born with a phallus, you're both labeled male and also expected to want to use your phallus to have sex with women when you grow up. I don't see the need to draw a sharp distinction between those two gendered assumptions.
stephenclark on 11/3/076:42 PM:
Lori asks a provocative question in asking about going forward with lesbian but not gay male equality. The cop out answer is that such a bill would be unconstitutional because it would protect one sex but not the other. But to respond to her point, gay men in that case would have exactly the same incentives to delay enactment as trans folk have now. It's not that I don't understand the situation. Gay men would have the same fear and resentment over being left out, and they'd make the same tactical appeals to community, siblinghood, and family. But there as here I'd question the sincerity of those lovely sounding appeals. Why? Because the fact is that I truly regarded someone as my brother and if I could save my brother from a brutal work environment by foregoing my own protections for a while, brotherly love would induce me to either make that sacrifice for him or at the very least feel really bad about forcing him to continue to suffer until protections can be secured for me too. Yet I've seen no asknowledgement among the UnitedENDA advocates of the great sacrifice they'd ask their supposed GLB "brothers" and "sisters" in the South, Midwest, and West to endure in a quest for a better bill. Instead, I've seen the appeals to community quite starkly coupled with some viscious accusations of bigotry. I don't think a true sense of community induces you to demand that your sibling continue to suffer for your benefit and call him a bigot while making demanding that sacrifice.
marc_salomon on 11/3/076:30 PM:
Stephen, I am comfortable with people holding differing queer theories than I hold so long as they don't try to enforce PC conformance to their theory and demonize all others. LGB have managed to keep cool with nature, nurture and choice theories all coexisting. I believe that trans folks focus on gender because gender issues are central to their queerness. LGB tend to focus on sex because that is central to our queerness. I think that the feminist theory of homophobia has been around for some time, it by no means my theory. I don't think that one can argue that sexism has no role to play in homo and trans phobia and it is clear that sexism explains the oppression of het women. Thus, it unifies both queer and feminist theory and struggle. The fact is that LGB are discriminated against irrespective of our gender expression simply because of how they think we have sex. A simple gender based theory cannot explain that. Further, I don't believe that most LGB believe they are being discriminated against due to their gender, rather due to their sexual practices. All you have to do is ask why violations of gender norms exist, and the answer to that is to ensure proper patriarchal power relationships where the man is on top and woman subordinate. Sex norms exist to ensure that the phallus is deployed for patriarchy, taboos are when the penis is not used to control a woman or absent, as non patriarchal sex is threatening to patriarchal rule.
stephenclark on 11/3/076:14 PM:
marc, I think you're making awfully fine distinctions and treating your specific patriarchy theory as too definitive and all-embracing. Although the points are insightful, I'm not prepared to accept that all the details of your metanarrative are essential to the explanation of the phenomenon or that other theories don't also capture a slice of reality. My point was a simpler and much looser one: that in some sense all of these things - including your patriarchy theory - revolve around the sex/gender system. I did not mean to signal embrace of the technical meaning of "gender" that queer and feminist theorists have embraced. (I don't use the sex-gender distinction myself because I find it unstable and ultimately artificial.) I meant only that all our subordinations are part of the sex/gender system, however much explanatory power your particular patriarchy theory may have. Query: Is there any tension between your embrace of political pragmatism but seeming rejection of philosophical pragmatism (in articulating the patriarchy metanarrative)? Maybe not. Just a thought.
marc_salomon on 11/3/075:49 PM:
Also, community is only community when it is community. When people are on the same page about something and get together to make something happen about it, then that is community. Just as we're seeing an atomization in society at large (bowling alone) we're seeing the same thing in the post Lawrence v. Texas LGBT world in the US. Until people agree that there is common cause, they're not going to take steps to further that common cause. All I'm saying is that it is very difficult to encourage LGBT to work together because of the tediousness of organizing them. And there are significant impediments to creating comm/unity. Let's not delude ourselves that the organizations, 280-odd of them, are in any way democratic representations of the LGBT communities at large. The HRC is the largest of those groups by several fold, and for some time it clearly has only represented the interests of its members, not the broader LGBT community. By some arguments there is some overlap, but there is no consensus at the grassroots as to what that means. What is really alarming to me is that trannies, the folks who invoke the legacy of those who threw bottles at mafia cops at Stonewall are now cowering as victims unable to fend for themselves politically.
marc_salomon on 11/3/075:37 PM:
Steven, I disagree that gender is the source of discrimination. They hate us for not adhering to the patriarchal norms on how we have sex and who we love because same sex love and lust do not reproduce the patriarchal system and set the example of autonomy against a totalizing power system. Patriarchy encompasses both sex and gender norms, but those two are at the same level and both subordinate to patriarchal power relationships. There is contention over this. Most LGB tend to take that perspective while many trans folks argue for a gender perspective. This is one fundamental philosophical disconnect that needs to be addressed in a healthy manner if we are going to focus on unity rather than divisiveness. Legislatively, trans issues bleed, as you note, into issues of "looksism," while for LGB, they hate us because of how they think we *?&@!. This is how both "straight acting" gays and lesbians as well as mincing queens and bull dykes can all be discriminated against even though their genders are all over the place including the "norm." Hets suck dick and eat pussy as well as *?&@! ass, so it is not a far stretch for them to understand how LGB do that same sex now that we're visible. The capital crime against patriarchy, of course, is the abnegation of (or construction of a false) phallus, and that, to my mind, is the patriarchal source of structural trans phobia.
stephenclark on 11/3/075:04 PM:
Oops, I meant to say that the exclusion of pregnant women was CORRECTED in 1978 with enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
stephenclark on 11/3/074:59 PM:
marc, I agree with your pragmatic take on the political process, but I disagree with the suggestion that there's no connection or common interest among LGB & T. At base, the discrimination against both groups is grounded in a restrictive view of gender. In fact, the original legal exclusion occured when courts interpreted Title VII's ban on sex discrimination as not including GLBs, Ts, pregnant women, or men with long hair - all ultimately gender issues. But I agree with the pragmatism. The exclusion of pregnant women was correct in 1978 with new legislation. The traditional version of ENDA would correct the exclusion of GLBs. Banning "gender identity" discrimintaion would correct the exclusion of Ts. Interesting, however, none of the proposed legislation - including the so-called inclusive ENDA - would address the exclusion of people who fail to comply with sexist dress and grooming codes. To the extent those codes remain legal, people like butch lesbians wouldn't be fully protected under even the "inclusive" ENDA, at least not to the extent they are disciplined for not wearing makeup, for having close-cropped hair, or for wearing pants. But banning sexist dress and grooming codes would probably be harder politically than banning anti-trans discrimination, so none of the bills even attempts to ban sexist dress and grooming codes. That's just another reflection of the pragmatic, incremental approach to civil rights.
marc_salomon on 11/3/073:32 PM:
Lori, you can speak in theoreticals or in practicals. The truth is that there is support for lesbian and gay and bi ENDA right now while there is not support for trans ENDA right now. You may wallow in victimhood, but there are three options before us: 1) fold and regroup to build support for ENDA+T, move ENDA and 2) vote ENDA-T down because it doesn't include T or 3) pass original ENDA and try to get it across the President's desk somehow. If you are looking for any sort of cohesive LGBT unity, then you are not going to find it. We have not found comm/unity in years of organizing except when it has come to sex-specific matters and then only fleeting. Declaring community where one does not exist is delusional. You've got to build whatever coalitions you can when you can to move what you can. Sitting around, singing kumbiya about how unified we are does not advance a civil rights agenda. Organizing coalitions that are capable of putting political pressure on electeds advances our rights. I am not complicit in your victimization. How dare you assert that because trans folks have not been able to organize and LGB have that LGB are responsible for your own failures to execute your agenda! The fact is that trans folks face different challenges that contradict at the most base level with LGB, primarily the predominant medicalization and genderization of trans issues contraposed to the nature/nurture sexuality of LGB. We're homosexuals, not homogenderals.
marc_salomon on 11/3/071:33 PM:
Zoe, I am not a member of the HRC and have criticized their exclusivity for some time. But on the matter of ENDA, they have been remarkably successful in executing a strategy to build a coalition in support of LGB rights. If trans folks are capable of organizing at lightning speed to block the original ENDA, then trans folks are capable of articulating and executing a strategy to make their case to swing members of Congress. If trans advocates do not advance their own campaign to build support for ENDA+T and continue to block ENDA-T, then the damage that would be done to LGBT effectiveness in Congress will be substantial and need a generation to repair. One more time: If trans folks are capable of organizing at lightning speed to block the original ENDA, then trans folks are capable of articulating and executing a strategy to make their case to swing members of Congress.
Lori Buckwalter on 11/3/071:32 PM:
If really invested in incremental progress, why not parse out "gay" ENDA into "lesbian" and "gay male" ENDAs and then see if you can't get popular support for the lesbian ENDA. (After all, lesbians are so much more acceptable to straight men than gay men, because gay men elicit such negative attitudes, and after all, we need so much more education about why men would "be that way") If that ENDA won't fly, maybe the next round could apply only to closeted "femme" lesbians, who are really not such a problem after all. If that doesn't work... evntually, you can parse down the inclusion to that which is compatible with prevailing biases. True, in the process you will dissect the community down to isolation and internal suspicion, perhaps to the personal isolation that has plagued us for centuries... while reinforcing not just the prevailing biases but empowering bigotry and its practitioners. Small price to pay for the permission to exist that will have been granted to the remaining acceptable fragment (pending further review)...
Really, when will queer people be able to say anything to others in this world about the solidarity that we can offer to them in creating a vision of universal human dignity? When will we actually learn that the tactics of division and suspicion that we succumb to so readily are the same that have subjugated people of color, women, religious, ethnic, language, regional and other minorities, and made us all complicit in each other's victimization?
ZoeB on 11/3/077:25 AM:
marc_salomon: So tell me, how many TS people have ever been employed in any capacity by HRC? So how are TS people ever to help themselves if those who control access to the politicians constantly block them? It's not as if TS people haven't tried to gain access. But as has been testified to by numerous groups, they always get fobbed off with aides, while HRC carefully rations the limited access they have to more worthy causes. The backlash over the trans-free ENDA took the politicians by surprise, because no trans-representing delegations had ever been presented to them by HRC. Why is that? And will it change now that HRC has lost all credibility?
stephenclark on 11/2/072:04 PM:
jeri, as much as I sympathize with your frustration, some of your personal attacks are out of line.
marc_salomon on 11/2/0711:14 AM:
Look, the original ENDA, the one that was around for 25 years, did not include trans protections. That was added in in 2004 or so because it seemed like a no brainer. Unfortunately, the political work required to build a coalition behind it was never done. LGB cannot do that work, it must be led by trans folks. Lead that as you would, but your numbers are small enough--the HRC has many times more members than all the other 280 groups combined--that you will have a hard time moving that agenda on your own. Welcome to politics, where it takes much more than just showing up with a good idea and a bad attitude.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/0710:40 AM:
salomon, you are a bigot. advocate all you want for 3685 and i will support you. just don't make any of your ignorant comments concerning the "trans folk". you have piss in your veins.
marc_salomon on 11/2/0710:18 AM:
The only thing that counts here is not what we believe is just, rather what we can convince legislators to support. Sitting in the middle of the room, holding your breath until you turn blue by asserting what you need and blaming your allies for not giving it to you is not a strategy to build a coalition capable of moving legislation. That requires political work. Damn, the Democrats just went to the mat on the SCHIP, an incremental health care measure which only provides health care to some and cuts it for others. Why the double standard that it is okay to incrementally achieve health care but not civil rights? And do folks realize the damage they are doing here, in that the divisiveness created by trans advocates towards the LGB community through the choice of language and disconnect from the reality of living LGB in a red state? How much more work will it take for trans advocates to dig themselves out of that hole they've entered by alienating LGB before they can mount a campaign to make up those 80-odd votes? And why are trans folks still arguing about ENDA 2007 where they cannot win instead of articulating and executing a campaign to prevail in Congress? LGBT are diverse, not a progressive group by any means, and those like us in coastal enclaves need to stop generalizing our politics onto LGBT at large. If LGB rank and file are not nearly unified on T in ENDA, then how can you expect Congress to be? Much work remains to be done, don't mourn organize!
ZoeB on 11/2/078:37 AM:
We believed this line of "incremental progress" before.
We believed in Wisconsin, where TS people have been waiting for 22 years, with no progress, or any hint thereof. And where TS people in jail have recently been singled out to *not* receive necessary medical treatment, by legislative fiat.
We believed in Massachusetts nearly two decades ago. There the GLB (no t) groups are considering disbanding, as now they have achieved the goal of same-sex marriage, there's no cause at state level worth fighting for. TS people are still waiting there too.
We don't believe these platitudes any more.
Had GLB groups kept their word before, we'd wait. But they didn't, so we can't. It's either GLBT or it isn't. No more lies, no more evasions, the HRC's credibility is shot on this issue.
jeri_hughes on 11/2/078:17 AM:
I am willing to argue all day that GLBT individuals should have EQUAL rights to any hetero-gender-normative individual in America, but I am tired of arguing with my gay brothers and sisters about ENDA. To Kevin Naff and the cocktail crowd, I say that I want the exclusive ENDA to pass legislation. I want Bush or some President to sign it, and I want it to become law. You are correct. Any freedom, any equality, is better than no equality. Let Aravosis have his half a loaf. And Kevin, you and your friends don’t have to be associated with those who are transgender. We will understand. At least I do. …….. The reality is that the legislation will actually have very little effect on actual equality related to hiring and firing of gays and lesbians. If someone in the decision making process decides that you are to femme or too butch, you still won’t get the job, or the promotion. Had it been trans inclusive it would have even less effect on the hiring of those who are transgender. They are easier to “read” than most gays. If you don’t think so, just look at the statistics on employment and the associated quality of life for the trans community..…… The exclusive bill is a start. At least it is a statement. It says “Gays and lesbians are people and deserve equal employment.” And they really do. Personally, I will always be willing to argue that position. But I am tired with this ENDA bill, and I won’t argue for myself. I will probably die before the legislation has any real effect, in any event. But you are young. You will remember when you represented that you didn’t want to be associated with those who are transgender. You will remember when you decided that advances were incremental and that some should be excluded. You will live with that. For me, that is enough justice.
