Why The Transgender Community Hates HRC

[Melanie85]

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-transgender-community-hates-hrc.html


Monday, October 08, 2007
Why The Transgender Community Hates HRC


Why does the transgender community hate HRC? It’s a question I get frequently asked in GLBT settings. Considering the recent GLBT family feud erupting over ENDA, it's an appropriate one to ask as well.

Before I get started trying to shed light on it, I need to point out in the name of journalistic integrity that I was the Lobby Chair for the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) from 1999-2002.

The roots of the animosity start after Stonewall. In an effort to appear more 'mainstream' to the straight community, Jim Fouratt and friends bounced Sylvia Rivera and other transpeople out of New York’s GLF (Gay Liberation Front). Jim Fouratt’s anti-transgender comments culminating in a 2000 one at a Stonewall observance in which he called transpeople 'misguided gay men who'd undergone surgical mutilations' also added insult to the injury.

In a pattern that persists to the present day, The GLF had protections for transpeople removed from a proposed 1971 New York GLBT rights anti-discrimination bill under the pretext that it wouldn’t pass with such 'extreme' language.

Ironically the bill failed anyway and the New York City GLB-only rights bill wouldn't pass until 1986. Transgender inclusion was fought at that tome by Tom Stoddard, who would later head Lambda Legal. Transgender people didn't get added in the New York City bill until after Sylvia Rivera's death in 2002.

In 1979 Janice Raymond poured more gasoline on the fire with her virulently anti-transgender book The Transsexual Empire. Raymond also took it a step further in 1981 and penned a quasi-scientific looking report that was responsible for not only ending federal and state aid for indigent transpeople, but led to the insurance company prohibitions on gender reassignment related claims. Germaine Greer’s anti-transgender writing combined with Raymond’s led to involuntary outing and harassment of transwomen in lesbian community settings. It also sowed the seeds for the anti-transgender attitudes in the lesbian community that persisted through the late 90’s.

So what does this have to do with HRC since it didn’t get founded until 1980?

The problem is that the senior gay leadership is still influenced by the Fouratt-Raymond-Greer negative attitudes towards transpeople. That sentiment is concentrated disproportionately in California and the Northeast Corridor. The early gay and lesbian leadership also sprang up from those areas as well.

The transgender community around the late 80’s renewed its organizing efforts to fight for its rights. The early leadership was also concentrated in the Northeast Corridor and California as well and regarded the gay community as natural allies.

One thing they didn’t take into account was how deeply entrenched the anti-transgender attitudes and doctrines were amongst gay and lesbian leaders. Barney Frank (D-MA) is a prominent example of it. They still persisted in holding the view that transgender people were ‘crazy queens’ who would cost them their rights. Gay leaders were still trying to use the 70’s assimilationist strategy to counter the Religious Right campaign against gay civil rights fueled by fear of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

In the 90’s the transgender leadership became more national in scope and more diverse by the end of the decade. In addition to the founding core leadership from California and the Northeast corridor, transleaders emerged in Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois. The emergence of leaders from what was derisively called ‘flyover country’ by the peeps from Cali and the Northeast Corridor changed the dynamics of the transgender rights movement.

The addition of leaders from these states brought people into the movement who not only believed in the principles of Kingian inclusion and non-violence, they practiced those values. The rise of the Internet gave them efficient communications links to exchange information and tactics, coordinate strategy and inexpensively talk to each other.

They were also people of faith who had ringside seats to the Religious Right takeovers of the Republican parties in these regions. The Texans watched their state be used as a laboratory for the tactics that would be used in the South and later the rest of the country.

As people of faith who were mostly Southerners, the new transleaders correctly perceived that the Religious Right was the same coalition of 60’s racist anti-progressive forces masquerading in ‘family values’ drag and urged coordinated efforts to defeat them.

Unfortunately, while the Religious Right was using the 80’s and 90’s to organize for culture war and develop their Machiavellian playbook to power, transpeople were fighting a pitched battle with the gay and lesbian community just to be included. This civil war against the GLB transphobes sucked time, energy and money from the transgender community that could have been better spent combating the Religious Right.

The predominately white and bicoastal-based gay and lesbian leadership didn't see the Religious Right as a threat because they not only didn't have fundies in their backyards, they let their anti-transgender biases color their perceptions. They dismissed the threat because it was transpeople who were sounding the warning bells about it. At the same thime they were cavalierly dismissing their concerns about GLBT unity and the Religious Right threat, they arrogantly demanded that transpeople work to pass gay-only rights bills.

According to legal scholar Kat Rose, such laws have the effect of creating a regime in which the same gays and lesbians who fought to prevent trans-inclusion have the de facto right under the resultant non-inclusive law to discriminate against trans people. It also allowed them to keep their leadership ranks and employee populations in these organizations transgender-free without fear of facing discrimination lawsuits.

When transgender leaders would balk at those demands or point out the hypocrisy of leaving us behind, they would state they would ‘come back for us’.

So far the only states in which the gay and lesbian community has ‘come back’ for transgender people are Rhode Island (2001), California (2003), New Jersey (2006) and Vermont (2007). In New York they are still having a difficult time passing GENDA after transgender people were cut out of SONDA by gay rights advocating the same 'we'll come back for you' incremental rights spin.

The first gay only rights bill, passed in Wisconsin in 1982 has been that way for 25 years now. There's no indication by the GLB leadership in that state if they'll move to rectify the omission of their transgender brothers and sisters or if they'll assign it a priority as high as the one they place on marriage equality.

We also heard the excuses during the 90’s to justify the gay and lesbian strategy that ranged from ‘the country needs more education on transgender issues’, we need 'incremental progress' to the mean-spirited ‘it’s not your turn to get rights yet’. Ironically there are now more transgender inclusive laws on the books than gay-only ones, and those numbers are increasing.

And where does HRC fit into this equation?

One of the people most responsible for excluding transpeople from an attempt to pass a gay rights law in Minnesota in 1975 was a gentleman by the name of Steve Endean, who in 1980 would leave Minnesota to help found the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the proto organization that later became HRC. Some Minnesotans assert that it's not a conicidence that the same year HRCF was born in DC, Minnesota's gay rights proposals became T-inclusive and eventually lead to the first T-inclusive law in 1993.

In 1995 Elizabeth Birch took over as Executive Director of HRC at a time when there was an epidemic of gays and lesbians cutting transpeople out of civil rights legislation.

In many cases gay people who sat on various HRC boards either nationally or regionally led the efforts. In 1999 Dianne Hardy-Garcia, who was the executive director of the Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby (now Equality Texas) at the time and an HRC board member, led the successful effort to cut transpeople out of the James Byrd Hate Crime Bill (to mine and TGAIN"s vehement opposition). That bill was eventually killed in the GOP-controlled Texas Senate but passed in 2001 as a GLB only bill and was signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry.

Elizabeth Birch for a while eclipsed Janice Raymond as Transgender Public Enemy Number One when she was quoted at a Chicago GLBT event as stating that transinclusion in ENDA (the Employment and Non Discrimination Act) a top legislative priority of transgender leaders would happen ‘over her dead body’.

That sowed the seeds to the growing perception amongst transpeople that HRC was ‘The Enemy’. It got worse when transgender lobbyists were told by sitting senators, congressmembers and various staffers that HRC Capitol Hill lobbyists Nancy Buermeyer and Winnie Stachelberg showed up on the Hill accompanied by GenderPac’s Riki Wilchins before transgender lobby events in 1997, 1998, and 1999. They asked those members and staffers to tell the transpeople coming to Washington that inclusion in ENDA wasn’t possible, but hate crimes was. That revelation so enraged the transgender community that a group of activists that included yours truly founded NTAC in 1999.

After doing an investigative report during the summer of 1999 that determined the extent of HRC co-option of GenderPac leaders, NTAC decided to pursue a multi-pronged strategy to deal with it. They decided to explore partnerships with other GLBT organizations, made it clear that transinclusion in federal ENDA and Hate Crimes was non-negotiable and during my time there I helped author a legislative strategy designed to go around the congressional barriers set up to block transgender inclusion in ENDA

In 2000 NTAC also began the ‘Embarrass HRC’ campaign to call attention to the hypocritical nature of the relationship between HRC and the transgender community. Activists across the country began protesting HRC dinners and calling them out at GLBT community events about their resistance to adding transpeople to ENDA. The campaign got the attention of people to the point where they started asking HRC leadership tough questions and their contributions started taking hits.

Despite this success, the transgender community didn’t embrace NTAC. It was a multicultural organization whose early leadership was predominately Southern. NTAC was relentlessly savaged by people for fostering what they called ‘horizontal hostility’. A group of white northeastern activists that wanted to push accomodation with HRC formed the National Center for Transgender Equality in 2003 and named Mara Keisling as its executive director.

But NCTE to some transpeople had uncomfortably close HRC links that caused people to question not only NCTE's effectiveness in lobbying for transpeople but its independence. Transgender historian and legal scholar Kat Rose bluntly said that "I simply do not trust NCTE or Mara Keisling".

The interesting thing was the timing. NCTE came into existence after HRC loudly proclaimed that they didn't want to talk to NTAC. There were unconfirmed rumors that some of NCTE's startup money was provided by HRC supporters.

Not long after NCTE’s startup, the shift of the gay and lesbian rights priority from successfully passing inclusive rights laws on a state by state basis to marriage equality started. Transgender leaders such as NTAC’s Vanessa Edwards Foster warned that this was a mistake to push the issue a year before the 2004 elections, but once again transgender concerns were brushed aside.

When the Religious Right backlash resulted in gay marriage constitutional bans overwhelmingly passed in 18 states during that election year, the transgender community was proven correct once again.

This irritated the transgender community on multiple levels. The marriage-as-a-priority gays refused to acknowledge that not only did their actions cause the backlash to gay marriage and possibly generated enough conservative voters at the polls to help propel George W. Bush to a second term, despite the evidence of dozens of state DOMAs and anti-marriage constitutional amendments, they are in severe denial about it.

Transpeople are also miffed at the lack of HRC concern as to how this backlash specifically affects our lives. Transpeople were never consulted and had no input whatsoever regarding the push for gay marriage, but the Religious Right anti-gay marriage laws get interpreted by the courts in such a way that they had the negative affect in some cases of wiping out existing pro-trans marriage and even identity rights.

We're also pissed that the same people who demanded (and still demand) that we accept 'incremental progress' when it comes to trans rights hypocritically have no intention of accepting 'incremental progress' when it comes to legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

In conclusion, the drama between the transgender community and HRC (which sadly flared up last week after Rep. Frank introduced a non-inclusive ENDA) is a forty-year-old stew flavored with historical hatred, arrogance, political miscalculations, communication failures, misunderstandings, mistrust, and Machiavellian duplicity.

HRC also has a pathetic history of refusing to deal with trans people as equals not only in terms of civil rights legislation but even in hiring talented transgender people for their organization. This historical negativity keeps transpeople from working with HRC in any capacity. (Don't even get me started about the African-American community beefs with HRC, that's another post.)

The sad part is that this animosity is preventing HRC and the transgender community from effectively working together to defeat their common enemy despite the desires of people on both sides to do precisely that.

The flare up this time may have not only burned the bridge that people like recently resigned HRC board member Donna Rose and others were trying to build towards a working partnership with HRC, but made any talk of doing that in the transgender community moot for years to come.
Posted by Monica Roberts at 3:58 PM
Labels: GLBT politics, history, Texas, transgender
24 comments:
Constintina said...
Thank You for posting this, this is a great concise history that I've already emailed to a couple people.
12:54 AM
Monica Roberts said...
I thought that people needed to know that the bitterness between transpeople and HRC just didn't materialize out of thin air.
1:18 AM
seekingHIVpartner said...
all the thing involved is about sex. i stand in the state of neutral, and as a guy i know on positivesingles.com said to me once, the controversy is not about sex itself but the people who have it! and so, we people should not to learn to hate, but to love! and there would be no controversy!
1:37 AM
Monica Roberts said...
Your friend is partially correct.

For some GAY people its about sex. For transpeople its about survival.
2:30 AM
Pam Spaulding said...
Monica, this is a good comprehensive piece, particularly as a counter to John A.'s Salon article. It sheds new light to those not well-versed in the political history and back story and puts things into context.

You should cross post this as a diary on Pam's House Blend.

--Pam
10:12 AM
delux said...
This post has been removed by the author.
1:16 PM
Monica Roberts said...
I have a link to pambazuka.org on this blog.
3:05 PM
delux said...
I am so sorry, serves me right for not putting my glasses on my face! LOL
3:30 PM
Mark D. Snyder said...
thank you thank you thank you!
hrcisnotforme.com
6:34 PM
Monica Roberts said...
Pam,
I'm honored. Done
7:35 PM
Zoe Brain said...
Please publish this more widely. It deserves it.
10:52 PM
Robyn Webb said...
Thanks Monica. I've been harboring my bitterness about HRC ever since they rejected my resume submitted for two staff positions for which I am eminently qualified, solely because I am a transgender person, and because my letters of reference were from key figures in trans advocacy organizations. I could have accepted this if they had simply responded that they didn't feel I was qualified, as more conventional employers do when rejecting trans applicants, but their response may as well have just said "screw you tranny" in between the lines that read "Your credentials are most impressive, but we have decided to consider other candidates."

Thanks for the opportunity in DC a couple of weeks ago to tell HRC how I feel.
12:59 PM
jim said...
This is jim fouratt

Monica: your history is wrong. Sylvia Rivera was a founding member of the Gay Liberation Front, Star *Street Transvestite Action Revolution) was a cell of the New York Gay Liberation Front. STAR was actually headquartered at the first Gay and Lesbian Community Center in New York on Third Street between Sixth Avenue and McDougal Street and fully supported by GLF.

Sylvia was never thrown out of GLF. Yes, some of the lesbians were critical of drag because they felt it mocked women. Sylvia held her own in defending drag queens like herself. I always supported Sylvia’s participation in GLF.

Sylvia was thrown out of the Gay Activist Alliance (GAA) after Sylvia attempted to climb on to the stage of the Gay Pride Celebration in Central Park after the 2nd Gay Pride March UP Fifth Avenue from Greenwich Village.

Sylvia and Marsha P. Johnson were among the gender variant people active GLF. There were many gender variant and people of color in the first GLF.

Monica, you really need to make sure what you are told is in fact the truth.

Sylvia and I were close friends for 30 years. Even when Sylvia was dying, Bob Kohler asked Sylvia if she would want me at her funeral and/or wake. Sylvia told Bob Koehler, "..of course jim can come, I have known him a very long time." And I did attend and say goodbye to my friend with a kiss to ruby red lips.

I an quite saddened that many trans activist want to rewrite history to fit their agenda. The truth of history cannot be denied even when distorted.

A careful search of things I have actually said or publicly written will clearly show that much of what is attributed to me is simply not true.

Homophobia in the trans community is rampant and I have been the victim of it.

I am fully willing to discuss or debate publicly any issue that deals with gender variant gay and lesbian people.

If someone wishes to change their sexual orientation and use appearance, body modification and self-namage to do so, I believe it is there right. An individual's right to control his or her body is fundamental to my understanding of Gay Liberation.

I also believe that respectful disagreement listened to, reflected upon and responded to with a willingness for open communication is the basis of civil society and political gain.

So all of you who continue to vilify me should really look at the reasons you do ...and discover if in fact they are reality based.

jim fouratt
8:05 PM
DQRC said...
This post has been removed by the author.
12:34 AM
DQRC said...
Thank you for this very informative, eye-opening article! We've linked to it on our site.

Dragonsani Renteria
Deaf Queer Resource Center
http://www.deafqueer.org

* DQRC is proud to support a Trans-Inclusive ENDA
12:37 AM
http://www.usome.com said...
有什么 有什么网址 有什么新闻 有什么博客 有什么论文 有什么图片 有什么音乐 有什么搜商 有什么帖客 天气预报
11:24 PM
Monica Roberts said...
Jim Fouratt,
I met Sylvia Rivera during a New York vacation in May 2000 and spent the night at her house.

She laid out the entire ugly GLF history to me.

But I'm willing to listen to your side of the story.
7:34 AM
genevieve said...
Monica, I have been transgender for only two and a half years. I have sought to understand the emnity between GLB and transgender. From my vatage point, transgender brings to the forefront ideas about what masculinity and femininty are. The super male and super female is at play in organizations like HRC. I may be wrong but this is what I come up with.

Gennee
2:10 PM
Tricia said...
If someone wishes to change their sexual orientation and use appearance, body modification and self-namage to do so, I believe it is there right.

Although I agree with this statement to the letter, it shows Jim does not even understand what it is to be transgender.
11:18 PM
AHiddenSaint said...
I have always tried to crosspost from this when can. I am a younger generation Transgender who did not know much about the history, but I have learned a lot from reading what you wrote and doing searches online.

I will not be going the route of surgery, but it is my own personal reasons. I have many friends who are TS that I love and respect as family. I hope someday I can get a degree so that I can help other people who want to go for the surgery find a understanding voice. It is going to be a while before I complete that life long goal but I want to in my life time. I'm only 26 right now.
1:56 AM
Holly said...
I do appreciate that there is two sides to every story as well. And am glad that Jim has posted his comment.

But I wanted to thank you for bringing this discussion about. And for providing as much of your knowledge as you did.
9:47 AM
Lisaben said...
I think there's more people than those under the transgender umbrella who are disillusioned with HRC. I've been frustrated with their blind support of Democrats, no matter what the candidates position on LGBT rights is. They behave as if they are a LGBT arm of the Democratic Party and refuse to even look at any 3rd party of independent candidates who would be much better for us all. We have a similar state organization here in WI; put a bunch of Dems in control of the money and then wonder why we lost the amendment fight yet still elected a lot of Dems to state office.
12:45 PM
Wilmington said...
Very interesting how Jim pulls out the "homophobia" card...

ALL of my best friends are gay and are very wonderful, supportive people. And most of them don't like HRC either, saying that their focus seems to be to give the gay community a "straight" look, so they can blend in. It is obvious why we just won't do.

If you've seen the latest Stepford Wives movie, you'll know what I'm talking about here. Instead of screaming homophobia, Jim should be examining his own transphobia...
11:41 AM
Han said...
I just wanted to say thanks for this.

I'm currently writing my undergraduate dissertation on trans film and literature and this is really good background stuff for me.

Thanks again!
6:32 PM
Post a Comment

[AmberTG]

Interesting stuff!

[Emily Ann Brown]

Us TGs have taken it quite personal here in North Carolina with our state chapter. They asked us to "bite the bullet" and accept that we needed to be removed from the bill for "their" benefit, then asked for our group to put more $$$$ in the HRC kitty.

When pigs fly.


Emily Ann

[jill s]

Like most politically involved groups the ideas and goals always get watered down or played against each other. Real action on hard issues usually startes on the streets or with a huge court battle before "respectable groups" pick up the torch. Were is our Gendered Abby Hoffman ? He says, as he slides back into his closet.

[melissaK]

Gee, I didn't even know what HRC stood for, let alone that I should "hate" them as the opening line tells me. The post never says what HRC is - apparantly a post by insiders for insiders. I feel excluded already.

So I googled it. Human Rights Campaign. gee, i'm pretty sure I sent them a dollar or two over the years. Please don't count me among those who hate them - OK?

I read the sordid, and perhaps dubious tale as spun. It all seems to be ridiculous politics by people with precious little political capital to begin with. I applaud only one line in the tale:

"The sad part is that this animosity is preventing HRC and the transgender community from effectively working together to defeat their common enemy despite the desires of people on both sides to do precisely that."

hugs,
lissa

PS And I'm not sure about the "common enemy." Walt Kelly's Pogo comes to mind "We have met the enemy and he is us."

[Nicki B]

Gee, I didn't even know what HRC stood for, let alone that I should "hate" them as the opening line tells me. The post never says what HRC is - apparantly a post by insiders for insiders. I feel excluded already.

You too had trouble reading it all, then.... :rolleyes:

[GypsyKaren]

You too had trouble reading it all, then.... :rolleyes:

I figure if I start now, I should have it all read by next Tuesday or so...

Karen Starlene :star:

[Melanie85]

I figure if I start now, I should have it all read by next Tuesday or so...

Karen Starlene :star:
:D
:heehee:

[Stlalice]

Much as the folks at HRC would like to deny it their little escapade with ENDA last year probably did more damage to LGBT rights as a whole than any other recent event. If anyone in the LGBT community is to have the protection of ENDA type legislation then the infighting and sellouts must stop. Too bad that HRC apparently hasn't gotten that message.

[Valeria]

Too bad that HRC apparently hasn't gotten that message.
FWIW, I've talked extensively with a member of the local HRC steering committee, and he freely admits that HRC made a lot of mistakes and miscalculations last fall. He says that they want to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that this means they won't betray trans folk again. I rather fear it means that they'll be more careful to not get caught being so transparent about it next time.

[Valeria]

You too had trouble reading it all, then.... :rolleyes:
I'm not sure why the original poster didn't just post a link to this blog entry, and I can understand your lack of interest/knowledge (since this is a matter of internal USA politics).

But the basic storyline is simple. All of the even vaguely significant LGBT activist groups in the USA reached agreement years ago to push for a fully inclusive ENDA (employment non-discrimination) bill, and to accept no compromise on it covering all LGBT people. IOW, the stance was that the LGBT community would not allow itself to be split, and that ENDA had to cover both sexual orientation and gender expression/identity. HRC was the last big LGBT group to agree with this plan, but they did finally agree, and the President of HRC reiterated this pledge at Southern Comfort last September.

Then the politicians in Congress decided to test the resolve and unity of the LGBT community. Every LGBT org stood strongly in unity, maintaining that removing gender protections was not acceptable, save for one. Unfortunately, the one that did not remain firm on this point was HRC - the lobbyist org with by far the most money. There were several specific events and disclosures that revealed just how complicit the HRC was in removing gender protections from the bill, but the point is that ultimately their betrayal was pretty complete.

So this schism really is a big deal in the USA

[Stephanie Scott]

Seems to me that the problem is a narrow, monolithic view of the TGism that seeks to jam a square peg into a round hole. If there is one thing we know about TGism, it is that TG folks have a broad range of diversity and rarely are driven by 1 issue.

I find it irresponsible to call the so-called "Religious Right" the enemy (the post demonstrates ignorance about what conservative Christianity is even about), and I find the assumption that the gay community is automatically an ally to be short-sighted and misplaced. Aren't sexual orientation and gender identity 2 separate isues? Yes, I recognize that there is some overlap between some of the issues, but I would submit that a Christian crossdresser or transsexual, for example, might have more issues in common with the "Religious Right" than they do with GLB. Many many TG people define themselves by something other than or additional to gender identity issues -- in fact, the anti-Christian position alienates the numerous people of faith who happen to also be TG. Aligning TG w/ GLB is a mistake, and my opinion is that such efforts should cease immediately.

I'm at least somewhere on the spectrum of gender identity that is not to 1 extreme or the other ("garden-variety" CDer), but I would always first identify myself as a Christian. That is why such anti-Christian organizations will not have my support and do not speak for me even though they try to identify themselves as leaders of a self-described unified Transgender movement. Such a group does not exist except in the minds of these "leaders." I may not always agree with the positions taken by some Christian churches and organizations on TG issues (which I believes stems more from lack of information than hatred), but the centrality of Christ is far more important to me than some illusory pyrrhic political "victory" for the transgendered. Perhaps at some point I can be in a position to change some minds of fellow Christians about TG issues, but for now, I'm happy to be raising kids with a beautiful wife who love Christ and accept and even encourage their dad to wear a dress when he wants to! THAT is how things change.

One more observation: the more virulently strident and angry a "movement" behaves, the less likely the hearts of those one wishes to win over will be changed.

[AmberTG]

This is only my opinion based on personal experience and the experience of several others that I know, but the Christian right, at least where I live, tend to lump trans-genderism and homosexuality together and call both an abomination to God. As long as the official Christian policy toward people like us remains entrenched in that view, they will continue to be the enemy of trans-people and Gay people. I have personally heard that type of hate speech preached from the pulpit, and so I remain opposed to the right wing Christian movement. That is not what Jesus taught, but since it's in the Old Testament, the homophobic leaders of the various Christian churches will continue to preach against us. Many of us share this personal experience, it's hard to find an "open and affirming" church to attend in many areas.

[GypsyKaren]

I think the problem is one of chosen ignorance by the masses, they don't know anything about us and don't care to learn. Let's face it, they see someone on television prancing around in a dress in order to spoof or make a spectacle, and we're automatically lumped together with them. That's why I'm always getting into arguments here because I don't like being compared to crossdressers, but that's how the masses see us.

Karen Starlene :star:

[Stlalice]

FWIW, I've talked extensively with a member of the local HRC steering committee, and he freely admits that HRC made a lot of mistakes and miscalculations last fall. He says that they want to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that this means they won't betray trans folk again. I rather fear it means that they'll be more careful to not get caught being so transparent about it next time.

My old mama had a way of putting it "Fool me once, shame on you - Fool me twice, shame on me." As a community we wanted to believe the promises made at Southern Comfort. But after the events of last year I'll not trust them again. I suspect that anything they do or say will watched very carefully in the future. And well it should be. Accept their help or support if it is genuine yes but trust them to do the right thing without being watched very closely? No way!

[Valeria]

I find it irresponsible to call the so-called "Religious Right" the enemy (the post demonstrates ignorance about what conservative Christianity is even about), and I find the assumption that the gay community is automatically an ally to be short-sighted and misplaced. Aren't sexual orientation and gender identity 2 separate isues?
No, not really.

From an external perspective, gay people and trans people transgress the same basic societal rules. We are not heteronormative. A man wearing women's clothing, or a woman being romantically involved with another woman - either way, we are failing to conform to strict gender rules that much of society would impose. The precise way in which we are gender variant varies (both within and between the broad categories of "gay" and "trans"), but we all commit the same basic "crime" against nature in the eyes of those who would oppress us.

When trans people are victims of hate crimes, often the people beating them are shouting terms like "faggot" as they kick them and punch them.

In Saudi Arabia (for instance), when they prosecute gay men for doing horrible stuff like dancing with or (horrors!) kissing each other at a private party, the "crime" they charge them with is "behaving like women". That's their euphemism for being gay, with punishments including public whippings (in some cases, thousands of strokes spread out over a period of years), multi-year prison terms, and sometimes execution.

(Supposedly lesbians like myself aren't quite as oppressed by the Sauds. We just get thrown into a harem and allowed to do whatever we want with the other wives, as long as we keep it behind closed doors and we still perform our wifely "duties" upon demand. Yay. :rolleyes: )


Yes, I recognize that there is some overlap between some of the issues, but I would submit that a Christian crossdresser or transsexual, for example, might have more issues in common with the "Religious Right" than they do with GLB.
Do you not also recognize that there is substantial overlap between those who are "Christian" and those who are vehemently anti-queer? Do you not recoginize that it was primarily Christian conservatives (with the support of other cultural conservatives) that spearheaded all of the state laws and amendments banning same-sex marriage in 2004 (which badly hurt transsexual people, as our marriages can be construed as same-sex no matter who we marry or what gender they are).

There are specific churches and religious organizations in this country who devote most or all of their resources to anti-queer propaganda and opposing the so-called "gay agenda". Those organizations are enemies of LGBT people - they've largely said so themselves. These are the sickos who show up to protest at the funerals of soldiers (who aren't even gay), just to proclaim that he deserved to die because our country isn't sufficiently oppressing gay people. If other conservative Christians oppose such actions, perhaps more of them ought to publicly denounce them, loudly and often.

In the meantime, while I know some transsexual people who are conservative, and I know many transsexual people who are religious, overall I don't know a lot of "conservative Christian" transsexuals among those that have actually transitioned. Or "conservative Muslems", for that matter. It's kind of hard to sustain the required degree of self-loathing all the way through transition.

In my experience, conservative Christian gay people are more common (although still a small minority).


Many many TG people define themselves by something other than or additional to gender identity issues -- in fact, the anti-Christian position alienates the numerous people of faith who happen to also be TG.
I'm not the least bit anti-Christian. I've had obscenities shouted at me by so-called Christian protesters, just for walking down a street in a parade with other queer femmes (lesbians). I've been fired from a job for being trans by a man who never mentioned religion except to gay-bash. Before I was fired, I was asked to stop coming into the office because my presence upset his deeply religious receptionist (and yes, her religion was actually cited to me as the reason). But that doesn't make me anti-Christian, because these people clearly don't follow the ways of Christ. I'm just anti- bigoted, pseudo-religious hypocrites.


Aligning TG w/ GLB is a mistake, and my opinion is that such efforts should cease immediately.

I'm at least somewhere on the spectrum of gender identity that is not to 1 extreme or the other ("garden-variety" CDer), but I would always first identify myself as a Christian.
Well how convenient for you.

Every major civil rights advance for trans people has come with the assistance of our gay allies. Lambda Legal, an organization of LGBT lawyers that help people out, has helped me twice with trans related legal issues.

But none of that is likely to matter much to a "garden variety" CDer. You aren't likely to get fired or harrassed at work for being gay or trans. Or be killed by classmates. Or have your marriage nullified. Or have the state refuse to acknowledge that you are the non-birth parent of your biological daughter, just because you are a woman. It's a lot easier for a closeted, part-time queer person to say "rights, smights - who needs 'em?", than it is for someone actually transitioning or openly gay.


One more observation: the more virulently strident and angry a "movement" behaves, the less likely the hearts of those one wishes to win over will be changed.
Please forward this advice to the people who show up to angrily scream condemnations at me for being gay, when once a year my girlfriends and I merely want to walk down a street en masse and smile and wave at the spectators. And the street preachers that accost young people (some of whom aren't even gay) to denounce us.

Oh, and you should probably also tell the people that came to my campus with 20-foot tall pictures of aborted fetuses from third-world countries (comparing abortion to the Holocaust) that shouting at teen-age girls and verbally abusing them to the point where they were literally afraid to cross the courtyard isn't persuasive. It's just mean (and since some of these women are as young as 17, it borders on child abuse).

They don't seem to have gotten that message.

[Stephanie Scott]

All 40 or so years of my life, I have belonged to or regularly attended churches that I suppose society would define as a church of the so-called "Religious Right." (Of course, those who use that term perjoratively have no idea really what that means). I have belonged to/regularly attended Presbyterian (PCA), Presbyterian (USA), Catholic, Southern Baptist, Lutheran and Methodist churches. These churches have been located in the Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, and West. Even the churches that belong to a more left-leaning mainline denomination were actually pretty conservative. And the PCA churches and Southern Baptist churches, in which I have spent most of my life, clearly were/are conservative.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about crossdressing exactly 1 time. It was at a PCA church where the pastor gave a sermon about the first time his mother wore pants to church (which caused somewhat of a stir), and she told him and everyone else that it didn't matter what one wore; what mattered is what was in their hearts. He took those comments to heart.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about homosexuality specifically maybe 5 times. The message every time was that while homosexual behavior was not something to be condoned (because sexuality is reserved by God for marriage), we are to nevertheless love everyone, because we are all sinners and need to demonstrate the same grace and mercy that our merciful God shows to each one of us.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about transsexuality 0 times.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about overcoming our sinful desires with the help of the Holy Spirit in areas such as greed, selfishness, pride, sexual sin such as adultery or sex outside marriage, gossip, apathy, etc hundreds or maybe even thousands of times. I suppose homosexuality was mentioned a number of times within the larger context of other references of things we believe to be sexual sins, but it has never been made out to be worse than any other kind of sin. And never have I heard a cross word for someone just because they were gay.

There are several problems with all of this stuff that I read from angry activists.

1) They paint the Religious Right with a broad brush and have no understanding (or attempt to make no distinction) between people, churches, or denominations. They frankly just want to demonize Christians because they see Christianity as the enemy.
2) They categorize honest doctrinal disagreement with the morality of certain types of behavior as "hatred" or "bigotry."
3) If church A has a doctrinal view that a certain type of behavior is wrong but the church reaches out in love to people who practice that behavior, church A is nevertheless lumped in with church B, which behaves meanspiritedly (and yes, with hate and unChristian-like behavior) toward those who engage in that behavior.
4) They infantilize themselves by jockeying for position as the most righteous "victim" of societal views/norms, and they put down those whom they view as being less of a victim than they are.

That being said, I certainly don't deny or minimize the times when people have been victims of crime, or hate, or angry speech directed toward them because of their beliefs or sexuality or gender identity. Of course it happens. People who claim to be Christians have frequently and undoubtedly been the perpetrators of such things (although these folks don't have that market necessarily cornered).

We probably misunderstand some of what the other is saying because we have different internal definitions of the same terms. Are conservative Christians "anti-queer?" I don't know. I suppose it depends on how one defines "conservative Christian" and "queer," and "anti-queer." If your point is that conservative Christians believe homosexual behavior to be morally wrong, then I would agree. If your point is that conservative Christians hate gay people and want to deprive them of rights, then I vehemently disagree. I think virtually every one of the conservative churches I have attended has had ministries that contributed significant amounts of money and time to orgnizations battling AIDS, for example. Is that "anti-queer?"

Are there some people/churches/religious organizations that define themselves or are defined by others as Religious Right that hate gay people? (Many of the experiences described in previous posts on this thread bear out this fact that some people harass under the banner of Christianity while not really being Christians at all -- those so-called Christian organizations that protest at funerals and shout at you are the vast vast vast minority of Christians and likely are not authentic Christians at all). Undoubtedly.

For those that do, I question the authenticity of their Christianity, because we all know that Jesus showed love toward all of us (and all of us are sinners). He did not, however, necessarily love the sin. He defended and protected the adulteress against an angry judgmental mob, but he also told her to go and sin no more. I have witnessed this same philosophy to a much greater degree (although executed imperfectly, since we are human) in conservative Christian circles than I have witnessed active hate. The problem is that the gay community often sees opposition to their sexual behavior as hatred, and therein lies the problem.

I think there is room for civil debate with conservative religious authorities and organizations about sex and gender issues, and I think that it could go a long way toward better mutual understanding.

As a garden variety CDer, I certainly recognize that I don't have the same challenges as others who are much more open about their "differentness." That doesn't mean I don't have something useful to say.

I'm not even going to wade into the morass discussing the atrocity of abortion and the murder of millions -- many of whom are killed for reasons such as their gender, by the way. While I don't condone the intimidation of young girls, to label that as "child abuse" while ignoring the destruction of the children in their wombs is outrageous. What would YOU do if you saw a 17 year old girl about to kill her child. Try to stop it? I hope so. So would the child, who would herself be defenseless.

[AmberTG]

Well, the thing I would have to add to this is that the Baptist church is actvively anti-homosexual, it's part of the official church statement of beliefs. The Baptist church that I used to attend with my ex-wife would actively not allow anyone who identified as gay or trans to become members of the church. I have personally heard several sermons and seen official church video publications that denounce gay people as "an abomination to God". There is no forgiveness of sins involved there, but there is active condemnation and discrimination involved, so don't tell me that Christian gay bashing is not official church policy.

[Teresa Amina]

Essentially the problem is that Lobbyists have more influence than proper. HRC had the most money to spend. Doesn't that make their activity akin to bribery? If I as Jane Lobbyist promise the submissive votes of the members of my organization in exchange for X, and you, Joe Legislator, take the deal You Have Been Bribed!
The corruptness of the American system is astounding!

As for the Religious stuff- don't you see it's all about keeping you distracted from the true issue of Power? Keep the masses bitching at each other (with some profoundly disturbing acts of violence allowed to keep the pot boiling) and they'll be nice little slaves :thumbsdn:

[Stephanie Scott]

Amber,

I'm deeply sorry that your experience was so negative, but it also isn't fair to take the policy of 1 church and extrapolate to all of Christianity. There are many independent and organized Baptist denominations, and it depends on one's definition of "anti-homosexual" (as I stated previously, definitions are very important). Opposition to homosexual "marriage" and homosexual behavior does not necessarily equate to hatred.

I am prayerful that you will be exposed to something more positive

[Valeria]

There are several problems with all of this stuff that I read from angry activists.
Some people do paint with overbroad strokes. There are problems with the statements of the most extreme activists for *any* position or of *any* political denomination.


They paint the Religious Right with a broad brush and have no understanding (or attempt to make no distinction) between people, churches, or denominations. They frankly just want to demonize Christians because they see Christianity as the enemy.
I think many people recognize that the "Religious Right" is a political movement, not a religious movement. It is pretty clearly true to me that such a movement currently exists in our country. "Christianity" isn't really an explanation for their opposition to gay people. It is used as a shield to justify homophobic behavior.

In the state where I live, they have been debating a law to prohibit gay people from adopting. There is another state where such a law already exists.

There is a midwestern (more or less) state that tried to prohibit gay people from adopting children (thus legally depriving certain children from much needed loving parents). This law was struck down by the state supreme court. So they instead have been trying to pass a law prohibiting *anyone* single from adopting a child (which will conveniently get all the gays, since same-sex marriage is already prohibited). They clearly don't care anything about the children involved.


They categorize honest doctrinal disagreement with the morality of certain types of behavior as "hatred" or "bigotry."
It is true that when someone tells me that I am doomed to Hell due to an inherent aspect of my core being (such as being gay or trans), I'm inclined to look upon their motives uncharitably. Especially when they don't seem to be as eager to deprive other forms of "sinners" of basic rights.

But I know it's very unkind of me to call people bigots, simply because they want to deprive me of employment, spouse, and child because of my sexual orientation. I suppose I should be grateful that people like me don't get stoned in this country.


If your point is that conservative Christians hate gay people and want to deprive them of rights, then I vehemently disagree.
Well, that depends on the group or individual in question, doesn't it? I mean, there certainly are plenty of so-called Christians who are willing to expend considerable time, money and energy to do exactly that - deprive me of my rights. There were so-called Christian leaders who said that the USA deserved 9-11 because of our tolerance for gay people, for goodness sake. They may be a minority, but they are very vocal, and there really aren't enough compassionate Christians making it clear that they disagree with them. Where are the multitude of major Christian leaders calling for equal rights and equal treatment of gay people?

However, I would never condemn all Christians. My sister is a very devout Southern Baptist, and she's the sweetest and most loving woman in the world. She loves, accepts, and supports me without reservation.

I've actually argued with people that have painted with too broad a brush in condemning Christians in other settings. Christians can be wonderful, loving people. Based on the teachings of Christ, one would hope all Christians would be accepting and tolerant.

But to pretend that there is not a large, organized movement dressed in the clothing of Christianity that wishes to oppress gay people is naive, in my opinion.


I'm not even going to wade into the morass discussing the atrocity of abortion and the murder of millions -- many of whom are killed for reasons such as their gender, by the way.
I'm not interested in debating the morality of abortion here, as that was *not* the point of my comment. It was merely a textbook example of so-called Christians being "strident and angry" (to use your phrase) in their attempt to cow young impressionable women into agreement with their point of view. Another extreme example would be anti-abortion fanatics actually murdering physicians that perform abortions.

And I'm well aware of the problems of abortions being motivated by the sex of the child. I'm also aware of baby girls being murdered shortly after birth, either by having their heads caved in or by being abandoned. I'm aware of orphanages that allow baby girls to starve to death, because their is an over abundance of this unwanted commodity, and because they'd rather see the child die a slow painful death than get blood on their hands more directly. I'm aware of cultures that mutilate young women's genitals as a means of control.

I'm actually pretty well versed in all sorts of women's rights issues, but outside activism there unfortunately isn't much I can do to stop these atrocities.


While I don't condone the intimidation of young girls, to label that as "child abuse" while ignoring the destruction of the children in their wombs is outrageous.
I'm ignoring nothing, but only the treatment of these young women by the very angry activists is material to the topic of this thread. I'd be a lot more impressed if you actually condemned the intimidation of young girls.


What would YOU do if you saw a 17 year old girl about to kill her child.
If she was about to kill her baby, I'd take steps to protect the baby - including calling the authorities.

If she was contemplating having an abortion, I'd talk seriously with her about the consequences. But I wouldn't take the law in my own hands, and I wouldn't browbeat her or scar her emotionally. She's still a child herself. She needs love and guidance, not anger and even more emotional trauma.

[Stlalice]

At the risk of getting seriously off topic here I'll post this piece. But seeing that religion has already been brought into it by others I'll risk it. I know many fine people who are members of churches that some would label as the "religious right" and condemn accordingly with out ever looking closer. What really confuses things is the fact the policies can and do vary within individual denominations - individual churches may well be very different in how they behave toward others. The piece below was written by the Rev. Lea Brown pastor of the MCC church in Wichita Falls Texas after one incident and bears thinking about - it doesn't matter what name a church or other organization uses - what matters is how they treat people. For the purpose of the discussion here the man in question could just as easily have been transgender.

Churches That Won't Bury Gays?
Let's Hold A Funeral For Misguided Principles

by Rev. Lea Brown

[BACKGROUND: In August 2007, a fundamentalist mega-church in Texas refused to conduct funeral services when it found out the deceased man was gay. Rev. Lea Brown, the openly lesbian pastor of Wichita Falls Metropolitan Community Church (Texas) and a veteran of the U.S. Army, has a few thoughts about that.]

Whew. I don't know about you, but I sure sleep better at night knowing the Christian churches in Texas are standing by their principles.

Take the High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, led by Rev. Gary Simons (brother-in-law of mega-church pastor Joel Osteen). The church believes that homosexuality is a sin. When they recently found out that they had inadvertently (according to their version) agreed to provide a funeral for a gay man, they withdrew their invitation 24 hours before the event on the principle that they didn't want to appear to be endorsing "that lifestyle." Sure, the grieving family was left scrambling to find an appropriate venue in which to say goodbye to their loved one, and then contact 100 expected guests about the change of location in their time of sorrow. But hey, principles are principles.

Aren't you glad that at least in Texas there are church folks who are willing to risk looking like heartless bigots rather than betray what they believe to be their "Christian" beliefs?

I mean, let's give credit where credit is due. They chose one principle that they believe is true (homosexuality and homosexuals must be rejected), when there are so many principles that they could have chosen instead. Let's review a few, shall we?

First, there is the principle of compassion, which dictates that we seek to understand the suffering of others, and do what we can through kindness to help in times of need. Cecil Howard Sinclair, the gay man who died at the age of 46 from an infection prior to heart surgery, didn't really need to have the funeral at High Point Church. But his mentally challenged brother probably did. Mr. Sinclair's brother works as a High Point janitor, cleaning the toilets, dusting the pews, and sweeping the floors that church members soil each week. Perhaps saying goodbye to his brother in a familiar place would have been comforting to him, and would have given him some peace as he returned to work each day in the weeks and months after his brother's passing. Perhaps all of Mr. Sinclair's family, including his partner, might have been comforted by the knowledge that the 5,000-member church actually cared about them at such a difficult time.

We could say that the church acted with compassion when it offered to pay for a community center space for the funeral, and provide food and a video presentation for those attending the service. In fact, we could even say they came dangerously close to violating their principle by these actions. But thank goodness they didn't offer to find another church space for the funeral. That would imply homosexuals and their loved ones actually deserve to grieve in a sacred place, as if God was actually with them in their pain. And we could probably agree that feeding homosexuals and their families is acceptable, but for heaven's sake – don't pray with them or stand with them at the graveside! Because that would certainly imply endorsement of two people of the same gender being in love with each other, wouldn't it?

Then there is the principle of gratitude. Cecil Howard Sinclair was a veteran of the United States Navy, and he served in the first Gulf War. He was willing to risk his life for our country, and for principles like "freedom of religion" that High Point members enjoy each day. Perhaps their willingness to make a video presentation of Mr. Sinclair's life for the funeral was the way they chose to express their gratitude. Thankfully, we can again be assured that they didn't compromise their principles though, because they edited out the images that showed Cecil being affectionate with his partner. After all, we wouldn't want a veteran's image to be tarnished with pictures like that.

Finally, there is the principle of hospitality. In the Bible, in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 10 Jesus instructs his followers to shake the dust from their feet from any town that does not welcome them warmly and listen to what they have to say. It seems that hospitality was rather important to Jesus, because he said that any such town would actually be worse off than Sodom and Gomorrah at the day of judgment. (Funny, he never mentioned homosexuality as being the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah – just their lack of hospitality). How courageous of High Point Church (which has a larger population than many towns in Texas) to risk fire and brimstone. They could have considered entertaining the notion that perhaps being a Christian is more about love than about unbending principles, but they didn't. Jesus would be so proud!

Now, it is true that not all churches in Texas are so principled. Right here in my own town of Wichita Falls there is a church that would have gladly received the family of Cecil Howard Sinclair. At Wichita Falls Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), we celebrate the lives of all of God's people of all sexual orientations. In fact, we would even lovingly welcome anyone from High Point Church into our sanctuary. Lest we forget, even Jesus reached out with compassion to those who were the oppressors of his day, just as he did when he healed the Roman centurion's son. The fundamental principle we live by is this one: Love your neighbor as yourself. We think that means loving all of our neighbors – straight, bisexual, transgender, Baptist, Muslim, lesbian, HIV+, poor, Latino, queer, disabled, Republican, veteran, peace-activist, immigrant, and gay.

So, I guess we could say that High Point Church doesn't have the corner on principles – just on their particular principle, which does indeed put them at great risk of looking like heartless bigots. But like many others on a spiritual path, those of us at Wichita Falls MCC will love and pray for them anyway. We will pray, "Forgive them, God, for they know not what they do." We will pray for their healing, that they might change their ways. We will pray that God will bless them and be with them, and that our actions would truly show that we desire to love those at High Point Church just as we love ourselves.

I guess we just have different principles.

Rev. Lea Brown



I couldn't say it any better than Rev. Brown did - what hurts for me is that it has to be said at all. I'll add that here in St. Louis at MCCGSL we have seen similar things. One incident that stands out in my memory was a Baptism for the child of a man being deployed to Iraq - the church that was originally to have the service backed out at the last minute - why? - one of the prospective god parents was gay. So two days before he deployed we welcomed the family and all their guests at an 11:30 AM Sunday service and the child was Baptized. I haven't heard if the man made it back home safely but I surely hope so. He had the thoughts and prayers of all of us going with him.

I guess what this all boils down to is another of my grandmothers little bits of wisdom. "Actions speak louder than words." Truly, what matters is not what an organization calls itself, but rather what it does. I'll continue to judge HRC and any other organization by what they do - not what they say. And pray that they too shall see the error in their ways.

[GypsyKaren]

I haven't seen to many churches or religious groups demanding equal treatment for us or gay people, in fact I haven't seen any, in fact I only see plenty of the opposite with lots and lots of hate mixed in.

I don't want to have an argument about religion, but it pisses me off to no end that so called religious people feel this overpowering need to force their views and lifestyles on everyone else. Every week I get someone knocking on my door trying to get me to join them in their brand of salvation, but I'm not a believer at all and I have absolutely no use for religion, now how do you think they would feel if I went door to door and told people that they should stop going to church?

Most so called religious people I know are hypocrites who believe in what I call "Line Item Bible", "Let's see now, I can go along with this and this, but not that, no way." So much of what is preached is hate and disdain for others who are different in any way, to me these are the ones who should be feared, not us.

Karen Starlene :star:

[CaptLex]

I haven't seen to many churches or religious groups demanding equal treatment for us or gay people, in fact I haven't seen any, in fact I only see plenty of the opposite with lots and lots of hate mixed in.
Unfortunately, that's been my experience as well - for the most part. But I was encouraged recently: last year at our city's gay pride parade there was a clergyman and some of his congregation handing out water to the marchers and encouraging us, and recently we found a church in the Village that accepts gays and trans people and lets our group use their facilities for meetings at no charge. I'm not saying things are changing quickly, but maybe there's hope. :)

[Stlalice]

I haven't seen to many churches or religious groups demanding equal treatment for us or gay people, in fact I haven't seen any, in fact I only see plenty of the opposite with lots and lots of hate mixed in.

I don't want to have an argument about religion, but it pisses me off to no end that so called religious people feel this overpowering need to force their views and lifestyles on everyone else. Every week I get someone knocking on my door trying to get me to join them in their brand of salvation, but I'm not a believer at all and I have absolutely no use for religion, now how do you think they would feel if I went door to door and told people that they should stop going to church?

Most so called religious people I know are hypocrites who believe in what I call "Line Item Bible", "Let's see now, I can go along with this and this, but not that, no way." So much of what is preached is hate and disdain for others who are different in any way, to me these are the ones who should be feared, not us.

Karen Starlene :star:

Karen,

I don't blame you for feeling as you do - Your "Line Item Bible" is an unfortunate fact of life in far too many places. Suffice to say that if you or any trans person should come into an MCC church and you don't feel welcome and safe then we have failed in our mission. And I want to know about it. And I will question the circumstances as just far as necessary. When we say "Come as you are, Believing as you do" we mean it! Need I say more?

[Melanie85]

I'm not sure why the original poster didn't just post a link to this blog entry, and I can understand your lack of interest/knowledge (since this is a matter of internal USA politics).

But the basic storyline is simple. All of the even vaguely significant LGBT activist groups in the USA reached agreement years ago to push for a fully inclusive ENDA (employment non-discrimination) bill, and to accept no compromise on it covering all LGBT people. IOW, the stance was that the LGBT community would not allow itself to be split, and that ENDA had to cover both sexual orientation and gender expression/identity. HRC was the last big LGBT group to agree with this plan, but they did finally agree, and the President of HRC reiterated this pledge at Southern Comfort last September.

Then the politicians in Congress decided to test the resolve and unity of the LGBT community. Every LGBT org stood strongly in unity, maintaining that removing gender protections was not acceptable, save for one. Unfortunately, the one that did not remain firm on this point was HRC - the lobbyist org with by far the most money. There were several specific events and disclosures that revealed just how complicit the HRC was in removing gender protections from the bill, but the point is that ultimately their betrayal was pretty complete.

So this schism really is a big deal in the USA

I did post the link, silly!

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-transgender-community-hates-hrc.html

Ok I'm not the greatest at using tag thingies... eww internet code technology! ahh get away!!1! imscaredomg11!1!!1!!!!!


Seems to me that the problem is a narrow, monolithic view of the TGism that seeks to jam a square peg into a round hole. If there is one thing we know about TGism, it is that TG folks have a broad range of diversity and rarely are driven by 1 issue.

I find it irresponsible to call the so-called "Religious Right" the enemy (the post demonstrates ignorance about what conservative Christianity is even about), and I find the assumption that the gay community is automatically an ally to be short-sighted and misplaced. Aren't sexual orientation and gender identity 2 separate isues? Yes, I recognize that there is some overlap between some of the issues, but I would submit that a Christian crossdresser or transsexual, for example, might have more issues in common with the "Religious Right" than they do with GLB. Many many TG people define themselves by something other than or additional to gender identity issues -- in fact, the anti-Christian position alienates the numerous people of faith who happen to also be TG. Aligning TG w/ GLB is a mistake, and my opinion is that such efforts should cease immediately.

I'm at least somewhere on the spectrum of gender identity that is not to 1 extreme or the other ("garden-variety" CDer), but I would always first identify myself as a Christian. That is why such anti-Christian organizations will not have my support and do not speak for me even though they try to identify themselves as leaders of a self-described unified Transgender movement. Such a group does not exist except in the minds of these "leaders." I may not always agree with the positions taken by some Christian churches and organizations on TG issues (which I believes stems more from lack of information than hatred), but the centrality of Christ is far more important to me than some illusory pyrrhic political "victory" for the transgendered. Perhaps at some point I can be in a position to change some minds of fellow Christians about TG issues, but for now, I'm happy to be raising kids with a beautiful wife who love Christ and accept and even encourage their dad to wear a dress when he wants to! THAT is how things change.

One more observation: the more virulently strident and angry a "movement" behaves, the less likely the hearts of those one wishes to win over will be changed.

The original blogger is I believe religious herself... In another blog she quotes a Matthew verse talking about Eunuchs, biblical equivalent of TGs.


Since you peeps are so adept at kicking out Bible verses to denigrate transgender peeps like me, here's one for you to chew on: Matthew 19;12

'For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.'



BTW, Eunuchs are considered by Biblical scholars what would be in our time as transgender people.

from:
http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-didnt-stop-being-black-when-i.html


I think when people talk of the Religious Right they usually mean the U.S. Theocrats [at least that's what I mean]; those that want to impose their versions of christian values on other christians they disagree with and non-christian by attempting to mix religion with government and to strip the rights away of those they dislike. As well, possibly those socially conservative bigots who use religion as a mask for their intolerance making all other genuinely religious people guilty by association (exploiting/corrupting Abrahamic religions this way is, sadly, nothing new)

Speaking of religion and TG, I also recently stumbled upon this:
http://chrysalismission.blogspot.com/2007/08/overview.html

EDIT: oh yeah, and to be the Religious Right you'd need to be affiliated with a church/group that has infiltrated the Republican Party in particular to use it to push any kind of oppressive/autocratic legislation... lest you be the Religious Left or Religious Independent or Religious Centrists.

[Melanie85]

All 40 or so years of my life, I have belonged to or regularly attended churches that I suppose society would define as a church of the so-called "Religious Right." (Of course, those who use that term perjoratively have no idea really what that means). I have belonged to/regularly attended Presbyterian (PCA), Presbyterian (USA), Catholic, Southern Baptist, Lutheran and Methodist churches. These churches have been located in the Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, and West. Even the churches that belong to a more left-leaning mainline denomination were actually pretty conservative. And the PCA churches and Southern Baptist churches, in which I have spent most of my life, clearly were/are conservative.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about crossdressing exactly 1 time. It was at a PCA church where the pastor gave a sermon about the first time his mother wore pants to church (which caused somewhat of a stir), and she told him and everyone else that it didn't matter what one wore; what mattered is what was in their hearts. He took those comments to heart.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about homosexuality specifically maybe 5 times. The message every time was that while homosexual behavior was not something to be condoned (because sexuality is reserved by God for marriage), we are to nevertheless love everyone, because we are all sinners and need to demonstrate the same grace and mercy that our merciful God shows to each one of us.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about transsexuality 0 times.

I have heard sermons/programs/church discussions about overcoming our sinful desires with the help of the Holy Spirit in areas such as greed, selfishness, pride, sexual sin such as adultery or sex outside marriage, gossip, apathy, etc hundreds or maybe even thousands of times. I suppose homosexuality was mentioned a number of times within the larger context of other references of things we believe to be sexual sins, but it has never been made out to be worse than any other kind of sin. And never have I heard a cross word for someone just because they were gay.

There are several problems with all of this stuff that I read from angry activists.

1) They paint the Religious Right with a broad brush and have no understanding (or attempt to make no distinction) between people, churches, or denominations. They frankly just want to demonize Christians because they see Christianity as the enemy.
2) They categorize honest doctrinal disagreement with the morality of certain types of behavior as "hatred" or "bigotry."
3) If church A has a doctrinal view that a certain type of behavior is wrong but the church reaches out in love to people who practice that behavior, church A is nevertheless lumped in with church B, which behaves meanspiritedly (and yes, with hate and unChristian-like behavior) toward those who engage in that behavior.
4) They infantilize themselves by jockeying for position as the most righteous "victim" of societal views/norms, and they put down those whom they view as being less of a victim than they are.

That being said, I certainly don't deny or minimize the times when people have been victims of crime, or hate, or angry speech directed toward them because of their beliefs or sexuality or gender identity. Of course it happens. People who claim to be Christians have frequently and undoubtedly been the perpetrators of such things (although these folks don't have that market necessarily cornered).

We probably misunderstand some of what the other is saying because we have different internal definitions of the same terms. Are conservative Christians "anti-queer?" I don't know. I suppose it depends on how one defines "conservative Christian" and "queer," and "anti-queer." If your point is that conservative Christians believe homosexual behavior to be morally wrong, then I would agree. If your point is that conservative Christians hate gay people and want to deprive them of rights, then I vehemently disagree. I think virtually every one of the conservative churches I have attended has had ministries that contributed significant amounts of money and time to orgnizations battling AIDS, for example. Is that "anti-queer?"

Are there some people/churches/religious organizations that define themselves or are defined by others as Religious Right that hate gay people? (Many of the experiences described in previous posts on this thread bear out this fact that some people harass under the banner of Christianity while not really being Christians at all -- those so-called Christian organizations that protest at funerals and shout at you are the vast vast vast minority of Christians and likely are not authentic Christians at all). Undoubtedly.

For those that do, I question the authenticity of their Christianity, because we all know that Jesus showed love toward all of us (and all of us are sinners). He did not, however, necessarily love the sin. He defended and protected the adulteress against an angry judgmental mob, but he also told her to go and sin no more. I have witnessed this same philosophy to a much greater degree (although executed imperfectly, since we are human) in conservative Christian circles than I have witnessed active hate. The problem is that the gay community often sees opposition to their sexual behavior as hatred, and therein lies the problem.

I think there is room for civil debate with conservative religious authorities and organizations about sex and gender issues, and I think that it could go a long way toward better mutual understanding.

As a garden variety CDer, I certainly recognize that I don't have the same challenges as others who are much more open about their "differentness." That doesn't mean I don't have something useful to say.

I'm not even going to wade into the morass discussing the atrocity of abortion and the murder of millions -- many of whom are killed for reasons such as their gender, by the way. While I don't condone the intimidation of young girls, to label that as "child abuse" while ignoring the destruction of the children in their wombs is outrageous. What would YOU do if you saw a 17 year old girl about to kill her child. Try to stop it? I hope so. So would the child, who would herself be defenseless.

Good post. The way I define the Religious Right as stated in my above post involves any church gatting their hands into right-wing politics (where history and other examples of Islamic theocracies has shown they should not be dabbling in).

Basically I'm anti-theocracy. Anti-imposing someone's views on another against their will.
When I first realized I was an (agnostic-)atheist I really hated those guys from the southern U.S. especially as some of them are infiltrating inside Canada (Moral Majority Canada gets funding from their American counterpart). Seems western religion is the cause of so much evil, and western religion is such a conservative institution.

But then I realised these guys while they may be in power now will eventually suffer a huge backlash, and they're a dying minority. These people I speak of condemn even their own fellow Christians, thought these people seem to be never much interested in Christianity to begin with, are rather using the bible and religious freedom protections as a shield to hide from, and/or to make a buck off.
One major flaw of Abrahamic religion (and probably many other religions) is that it or the churches promoting it seem discourage criticism of itself. As if doing so threatens their survival. So, combined with the vagueness/ambiguity of scriptures this makes religions easily corruptible, easily manipulable to achieve evil.
(case in point: the Christian Identity Church which is just a PR front for white supremists. They've managed to interpret scriptures to mean exactly what they want it to mean: Adam and Eve is the white race, etc...)

But I now know religion is not solely responsible for creating these bigots, but rather it is these bigots that exploit religion to get their way, (i.e. Hitler proclaimed to be Christian to gain popular support, and planned to create a new religion, the Church of the Third Reich as a way to psychologically control the population once his world dictatorship would be in place)


EDIT: And of course, some churches are just in it for the money... they'll say/do anything to appeal to as many of people's prejudices to get them to give them their money. Let's not forget, churches are in a way, glorified businesses. It kinda pisses me off religious charities/missions/churches do not have to comply with other non-profit humanitarian charitable orgs in having less than 30% of donations used up in administrative costs or else lose charity/tax-break status... can you say... embezzlement?


I'm not even going to wade into the morass discussing the atrocity of abortion and the murder of millions -- many of whom are killed for reasons such as their gender, by the way. While I don't condone the intimidation of young girls, to label that as "child abuse" while ignoring the destruction of the children in their wombs is outrageous.

That's why the United State (with by far the highest teen pregnancy rate of thw First World) needs to get some comprehensive sex ed, (and while we're at it we'd need even more sex ed than comprehensive sex ed from what I gather, having studied human sexuality extensively and now studying undergraduate Sexology at UQAM).
Sorry just had to put that plug in there... Yay Sex Education!

Sadly, some people want to prevent abortions by re-criminalizing them, possibly equating that the only way to be against abortions would be to be against legalising abortions as if these two are directly linked when legal abortions are in fact useful for harm-reduction and criminilization would only mean that organized crime would profit from unsafe black market doctors, and poorer women would resort to homemade abortions (think coathanger), as well as an increase in orphans and more overflowing and neglect at orphanages... if prohibition worked abortion would not have existed before Roe v. Wade, by now no one would be an alcoolic, illegal drugs would not exist, and the oldest profession would, sadly for those many sex workers who choose to work there, be no more.
Not to start a abortion flame-war, I'll leave it at that and won't reply.

[GypsyKaren]

Mr. & Mrs. Religious Right is more afraid of a gay or transgendered couple showing up on their doorstep and asking to be married in their living room than they are about New York being attacked again or the economy going to the dogs.

Karen Starlene :star:

[Melanie85]

Mr. & Mrs. Religious Right is more afraid of a gay or transgendered couple showing up on their doorstep and asking to be married in their living room than they are about New York being attacked again or the economy going to the dogs.

Karen Starlene :star:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk

[GypsyKaren]

Thank you Melanie, it's a sad commentary of the times that Congress doesn't get it, the President doesn't get it, all of these groups against us don't get it, but a comedian does.

Karen Starlene :star:

[Melanie85]

Thank you Melanie, it's a sad commentary of the times that Congress doesn't get it, the President doesn't get it, all of these groups against us don't get it, but a comedian does.

Karen Starlene :star:

To be fair he did take the time out of his very busy jewy, jewy day to explain these things to us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g