![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lobolance(I wrote this yesterday, as a letter to my ftm group)
I am just returned from the meeting the HRC called with San Francisco
trans community leaders. I am very grateful to Cecelia Chung of the
Transgender Law Center for bringing me in. Yea for south bay
representation. :-) (I feel like I say that a lot in all of my
communities ;-) )
There were about 50 San Francisco area transgender leaders present, in addition to a few people from HRC.
This will probably be long. Fair warning. And I don't claim to not have any opinions. to say the least.
I'll
start by saying, I am not feeling any better about the HRC than when I
went up there. I had a pretty open mind, meaning ready to listen. Not
'joyful' as some folks said they were, but ready to listen. I listened
a lot. I think it's time for me to (finally) investigate what it takes
to join the TLC.
Note: FTMI is now officially the Lou Sullivan Society.
Initially,
Joe spoke. Joe started off with a two pronged apology, one part being
about poor communication at the height of the ENDA strategy conversion,
and the other part about acknowledging they caused a lot of pain by the
course they chose. He then spent some time explaining the legislative
process in DC.
He also said that he did not expect to change any minds
by the discussion today, though discussion was important; he knew that
actions had gotten the community into the state it is in, and it will
be actions that will get it out.
I'm just gonna list a lot of points
next.
I don't have the numbers and stories to back up all the points; I was just taking general notes. If you're interested, check with the many tg services in San Francisco. This is just my experience and take on things.
There is a new congress; 30 new folks all at one time. Some
are kinda interested in lgbt issues, but very cautious; concerned about
getting reelected in a couple years time.
The HRC has been
working on educating congress about LGBT issues, including T issues,
for about four years; note the new influx of people. There trans
educating person has been a lesbian, not a trans woman or man. It was observed that
many legislators have never met a transperson, which someone else
pointed out as being a huge problem right there; HRC spokespeople on
the hill should include trans people. It's all about education, as was
emphasized repeatedly.
HRC thought they had enough votes initially to get the
inclusive version of ENDA passed. However, as the couple of weeks to
the vote neared, there was conversation with the whips about the
'motion to reconvert' (I hope that's the right word; reading my tiny notes has been problematic ;-)); which is like when at a
wedding when the minister asks if anyone has an objection... it's an
opportunity to derail the entire process. They suddenly found that when
concept was becoming reality, a lot of people backed up (that this wall
was likely to exist, that it was around gender identity, and should
have been anticipated was a concern many people voiced).
HRC had to make a strategic decision; pull back and represent
the bill several years hence, or go with the piecemeal approach. The
thinking on the piecemeal approach is that it has worked very well in
the corporate world; and it has. Each year the equality index the HRC
maintains has gotten more strict, and every year more companies
participate actively; some had commented that in 2002 they would not
have even tried with the 2007 standards; but they went their willingly
year by year.
Jamison Greene did speak about the success of this program. He also noted that without ENDA, the corporate world is nearly useless.
The corporate success only serves those who are gender normative enough
to get jobs. A number of people spoke with very passionate, heart
breaking detail of the lives of trans people who aren't so lucky. This was a core issue of integrity, or the lack there of, on HRC's
point, which a number of people called them on - Joe, and his lobbyist
lead companion, whose name I don't have (apologies for the sucky notes).
The analogy of being 'thrown under the bus' was used a number
of time, re how trans people feel about what happened with ENDA. HRC
does still have a number of trans people on their steering committees
and committees at the state level. However, some at least, clearly did
not feel listened to, even when they provided feedback (a la Jamison).
It was observed a couple of times that the HRC board did not
proactively go after trans community feedback while in the midst of the
strategic change.
One woman returned her Equality award, which she had received
from the HRC in a previous year. She stated how she had received
personal promises from the previous HRC prez, and from Joe, and how the
community had also been told we wouldn't be left behind, but now she
understood those statements to be lies.
HRC now has a large
"credibility gap" - a comparison was offered by a woman who had marched
for civil rights in the '60s ... civil rights was understood to be
about/for all people of color, not just blacks (eg it would still be ok to
discriminate against Asians if a noninclusive version had passed).
Joe did not perceive the fights as being the same. His view
is that it more like the work for rights for the disabled, which has
proceeded in a more piecemeal fashion.
HRC was perceived as being reactive rather than proactive when it comes to tg issues.
The tg experience is very diverse. There was concern in the
room (again) that only more normative people's issues were being
addressed by HRC. There was a lot of feeling/discussion around HRC seems to work for the LG part of the LGBT community... some B...
no T. The lobbyist used "lesbian/gay" as a shortcut statement once,
about HRC's mission... that endless use of words incorrectly
demonstrates a clear core HRC belief/standard issue.
We all know words count.
There was some passionate speaking about how the case of trans
people right now is worse than it has been in years, which is a pretty
direct result of splitting ENDA. There has been a large increase in
discrimination against trans people by gay people (for example, in
employment issues) (in San Franciscso anyhow).
Politicians are talking less with trans activists
(who they had previously had conversations with). The LGBT community is
far more schism-ed now.
Moving forward: HRC will work on getting a trans person as
senior staff, as well as getting more trans people in the committees. Their primary goal
(in congress; they have many foundations; family, religion, work, etc, in addition)
is to work on getting the 30 additional votes needed in order to
pass an inclusive version of ENDA. However... though it won't happen...
if tomorrow it were somehow possible to pass the exclusive version of
the bill, they would present it and get it passed.
I had the opportunity to express my complete bemusement over
this issue, as gender discrimination is a core issue for all gay
people; all the feminine men and butch women who can't get jobs. I
believe that that is part of the heart of the HRC's board's lack of
true commitment and understanding about the ENDA issue; they don't
really perceive it as being about them, too. I was gratified to see a
lot of heads nodding... but not Joe's.
A word I heard a lot from Joe was 'expeditious'; it is his job
to get bills, including ENDA, passed as expeditiously as possible. That
is what he was hired to do. That's a truth. However, in this case (in
my and the opinion of everyone else in the room) the cost was too high,
even if the incremental strategy is a good one (which I honestly can't
claim to have the one true answer about).
I am really, really concerned
that Joe did not put any particular value on the literal pain and
suffering in that room (let alone on the streets and in our community
at large). He has a job to do it, and his vision of how to get it done.
Connected to that, clearly he and board (as of course it's actually the
board which directs Joe's moves) do not make (or have not made until
now) any particular effort to get, or listen to when it's offered,
input from the trans community (even the highly respected activists on
their own team). This may change; he spoke of being committed to
getting more tg senior staff. Does that mean the BOD will listen to
them?
I am not terribly optimistic that Joe took anything new 'in' at
this meeting. I do believe he and the HRC are doing what they
understand to be best.
Throughout the entire thing, Joe was very noncommittal,
unlikely to answer things directly, entirely lacking in passion. I will
say however that his very polished presentation is no doubt precisely
what is needed on capitol hill. However, it's pretty terrible when
speaking within the community. The lobbyist was a lot more 'real'
feeling.
I also took my sixty seconds to ask a question submitted by a friend, about
the poll results which HRC had put out in the middle of the
controversy, saying the majority of gay folks said go for it with the
noninclusive version; who did the poll go to, what were the questions?. Again, a lot of people were wondering the same
thing, but by this time, we were out of time for the meeting. One of the facilitators
was keeping notes on the questions, and will send them to Joe, for his
reply, which should then go back out to all of the attendees.
On a personal note, every time I go to one of these community
events, I find myself completely surprised by how much real passion I
have around this discrimination stuff. I have to think about that.
Look
for more activist organizing to be going on in the south bay soon. I
hope each and every trans man and woman will participate at the level which
stretches him/her just a tiny bit, whether through activities or financial
contribution. It's so easy for us, passing FTMs, to just disappear. We
have so much to offer.
.
I am just returned from the meeting the HRC called with San Francisco
trans community leaders. I am very grateful to Cecelia Chung of the
Transgender Law Center for bringing me in. Yea for south bay
representation. :-) (I feel like I say that a lot in all of my
communities ;-) )
There were about 50 San Francisco area transgender leaders present, in addition to a few people from HRC.
This will probably be long. Fair warning. And I don't claim to not have any opinions. to say the least.
I'll
start by saying, I am not feeling any better about the HRC than when I
went up there. I had a pretty open mind, meaning ready to listen. Not
'joyful' as some folks said they were, but ready to listen. I listened
a lot. I think it's time for me to (finally) investigate what it takes
to join the TLC.
Note: FTMI is now officially the Lou Sullivan Society.
Initially,
Joe spoke. Joe started off with a two pronged apology, one part being
about poor communication at the height of the ENDA strategy conversion,
and the other part about acknowledging they caused a lot of pain by the
course they chose. He then spent some time explaining the legislative
process in DC.
He also said that he did not expect to change any minds
by the discussion today, though discussion was important; he knew that
actions had gotten the community into the state it is in, and it will
be actions that will get it out.
I'm just gonna list a lot of points
next.
I don't have the numbers and stories to back up all the points; I was just taking general notes. If you're interested, check with the many tg services in San Francisco. This is just my experience and take on things.
There is a new congress; 30 new folks all at one time. Some
are kinda interested in lgbt issues, but very cautious; concerned about
getting reelected in a couple years time.
The HRC has been
working on educating congress about LGBT issues, including T issues,
for about four years; note the new influx of people. There trans
educating person has been a lesbian, not a trans woman or man. It was observed that
many legislators have never met a transperson, which someone else
pointed out as being a huge problem right there; HRC spokespeople on
the hill should include trans people. It's all about education, as was
emphasized repeatedly.
HRC thought they had enough votes initially to get the
inclusive version of ENDA passed. However, as the couple of weeks to
the vote neared, there was conversation with the whips about the
'motion to reconvert' (I hope that's the right word; reading my tiny notes has been problematic ;-)); which is like when at a
wedding when the minister asks if anyone has an objection... it's an
opportunity to derail the entire process. They suddenly found that when
concept was becoming reality, a lot of people backed up (that this wall
was likely to exist, that it was around gender identity, and should
have been anticipated was a concern many people voiced).
HRC had to make a strategic decision; pull back and represent
the bill several years hence, or go with the piecemeal approach. The
thinking on the piecemeal approach is that it has worked very well in
the corporate world; and it has. Each year the equality index the HRC
maintains has gotten more strict, and every year more companies
participate actively; some had commented that in 2002 they would not
have even tried with the 2007 standards; but they went their willingly
year by year.
Jamison Greene did speak about the success of this program. He also noted that without ENDA, the corporate world is nearly useless.
The corporate success only serves those who are gender normative enough
to get jobs. A number of people spoke with very passionate, heart
breaking detail of the lives of trans people who aren't so lucky. This was a core issue of integrity, or the lack there of, on HRC's
point, which a number of people called them on - Joe, and his lobbyist
lead companion, whose name I don't have (apologies for the sucky notes).
The analogy of being 'thrown under the bus' was used a number
of time, re how trans people feel about what happened with ENDA. HRC
does still have a number of trans people on their steering committees
and committees at the state level. However, some at least, clearly did
not feel listened to, even when they provided feedback (a la Jamison).
It was observed a couple of times that the HRC board did not
proactively go after trans community feedback while in the midst of the
strategic change.
One woman returned her Equality award, which she had received
from the HRC in a previous year. She stated how she had received
personal promises from the previous HRC prez, and from Joe, and how the
community had also been told we wouldn't be left behind, but now she
understood those statements to be lies.
HRC now has a large
"credibility gap" - a comparison was offered by a woman who had marched
for civil rights in the '60s ... civil rights was understood to be
about/for all people of color, not just blacks (eg it would still be ok to
discriminate against Asians if a noninclusive version had passed).
Joe did not perceive the fights as being the same. His view
is that it more like the work for rights for the disabled, which has
proceeded in a more piecemeal fashion.
HRC was perceived as being reactive rather than proactive when it comes to tg issues.
The tg experience is very diverse. There was concern in the
room (again) that only more normative people's issues were being
addressed by HRC. There was a lot of feeling/discussion around HRC seems to work for the LG part of the LGBT community... some B...
no T. The lobbyist used "lesbian/gay" as a shortcut statement once,
about HRC's mission... that endless use of words incorrectly
demonstrates a clear core HRC belief/standard issue.
We all know words count.
There was some passionate speaking about how the case of trans
people right now is worse than it has been in years, which is a pretty
direct result of splitting ENDA. There has been a large increase in
discrimination against trans people by gay people (for example, in
employment issues) (in San Franciscso anyhow).
Politicians are talking less with trans activists
(who they had previously had conversations with). The LGBT community is
far more schism-ed now.
Moving forward: HRC will work on getting a trans person as
senior staff, as well as getting more trans people in the committees. Their primary goal
(in congress; they have many foundations; family, religion, work, etc, in addition)
is to work on getting the 30 additional votes needed in order to
pass an inclusive version of ENDA. However... though it won't happen...
if tomorrow it were somehow possible to pass the exclusive version of
the bill, they would present it and get it passed.
I had the opportunity to express my complete bemusement over
this issue, as gender discrimination is a core issue for all gay
people; all the feminine men and butch women who can't get jobs. I
believe that that is part of the heart of the HRC's board's lack of
true commitment and understanding about the ENDA issue; they don't
really perceive it as being about them, too. I was gratified to see a
lot of heads nodding... but not Joe's.
A word I heard a lot from Joe was 'expeditious'; it is his job
to get bills, including ENDA, passed as expeditiously as possible. That
is what he was hired to do. That's a truth. However, in this case (in
my and the opinion of everyone else in the room) the cost was too high,
even if the incremental strategy is a good one (which I honestly can't
claim to have the one true answer about).
I am really, really concerned
that Joe did not put any particular value on the literal pain and
suffering in that room (let alone on the streets and in our community
at large). He has a job to do it, and his vision of how to get it done.
Connected to that, clearly he and board (as of course it's actually the
board which directs Joe's moves) do not make (or have not made until
now) any particular effort to get, or listen to when it's offered,
input from the trans community (even the highly respected activists on
their own team). This may change; he spoke of being committed to
getting more tg senior staff. Does that mean the BOD will listen to
them?
I am not terribly optimistic that Joe took anything new 'in' at
this meeting. I do believe he and the HRC are doing what they
understand to be best.
Throughout the entire thing, Joe was very noncommittal,
unlikely to answer things directly, entirely lacking in passion. I will
say however that his very polished presentation is no doubt precisely
what is needed on capitol hill. However, it's pretty terrible when
speaking within the community. The lobbyist was a lot more 'real'
feeling.
I also took my sixty seconds to ask a question submitted by a friend, about
the poll results which HRC had put out in the middle of the
controversy, saying the majority of gay folks said go for it with the
noninclusive version; who did the poll go to, what were the questions?. Again, a lot of people were wondering the same
thing, but by this time, we were out of time for the meeting. One of the facilitators
was keeping notes on the questions, and will send them to Joe, for his
reply, which should then go back out to all of the attendees.
On a personal note, every time I go to one of these community
events, I find myself completely surprised by how much real passion I
have around this discrimination stuff. I have to think about that.
Look
for more activist organizing to be going on in the south bay soon. I
hope each and every trans man and woman will participate at the level which
stretches him/her just a tiny bit, whether through activities or financial
contribution. It's so easy for us, passing FTMs, to just disappear. We
have so much to offer.
.
Powered by ScribeFire.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-07 04:49 am (UTC)It will be nice when the need to make someone lesser than someone else goes away.
Until then, all I can offer is *hugs* and the occasional e-mail to my congress critter to remind her of Paragraph #1.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-07 04:28 pm (UTC)Thanks for your words of support.
Thanks for the reporting....
Date: 2008-01-07 06:43 pm (UTC)No question that they have caused harm. I think it was intentional and will in the near future be exposed for what it is. This goes past the actions of a couple of HRC leaders; it was fermented out of a back room gathering of some even darker sorts.
It is the start of a repeat of history. Think 1930’s Germany; it was a militant gay movement that is again rearing its head. The Transgender and effeminate were dragged in the streets to be beaten and stabbed. When I see HRC, I wonder what the equality (=) symbol is supposed to represent? First the transgendered, then those who are not of the first order,.... who next, the B&L's. I think Sturmabteilung is fitting.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 10:42 am (UTC)A friend of mine pointed me this way, and I'm glad she did. Can I friend you?
I'm from Indiana, but often get to the south bay area (my sweetie's there!).
no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 07:21 pm (UTC)Thanks...
Date: 2008-01-08 02:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 09:53 pm (UTC)Nice quote
Date: 2008-05-12 09:30 pm (UTC)Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blurty.com/users/williewolfmi