Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

A recent post over at the Indiana Equality blog was enough of a kick in the pants to remind me to post about some recent events.

If you know me, you know how jazzed I am about Barack Obama. The first time I ever heard about Barack the “Indianapolis” Colts still hadn’t ever won a Super Bowl. It was October 17th 2006, which just so happened to be my 39th birthday. Barack had been to Indiana the previous day to attend a fundraiser for Baron Hill, Joe Donnelly, and Brad Ellsworth (who at the time were three Congressional candidate hopefuls). At the time Jim Shella said:

“He then pointed out that the Colts have been “eeking out victories” while the Bears have been winning blowouts. Ever the politician, he said he’s looking forward to a Bears/Colts Super Bowl matchup.” (At the time of that fundraiser the Colts were 5-0, and in fact did go on that year to face the Chicago Bears in the Super Bowl)

When Barack announced in January of 2007 he was running for president of the United States of America, I started to research him relentlessly. The more I learned about him, the more I liked him. My fire for Obama grew steadily over the months, but the turning point for me was the HRC/Logo Presidential Forum.

I knew I had to get involved with the campaign, I just wasn’t sure how. In November I wrote: Since that time I’ve brought together the people (that would eventually become) the members of the Obama transgender subcommittee, I’ve hosted an Obama dinner, and I was the Pride coordinator for Indiana. But on Saturday June 21st, 2008, one of the most historic events of my life took place. I was chosen as the first ever transgender delegate from the state of Indiana. This wasn’t a haphazard event. I had the support of the Indiana Stonewall Democrats, the Barack Obama campaign, and the Indiana Democratic Party.

During the Convention I was given a copy of the Indiana Democratic Party Platform. What I read inspired me to take this picture at the time:

This was taken from the platform section titled “Including Every Hoosier.” It says:

“The Indiana Democratic Party is proud of our long-standing commitment to and support for civil rights and equality. Our 2008 ticket makes history, creating the opportunity for the first African-American president and the first female governor. As the party of the people, we strongly oppose restriction of opportunity to Hoosiers based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or economic background.”

I’ve never been prouder of the Indiana Democratic Party, the GLBT community, and the state. It’s a year of firsts for Indiana and for the country, and I feel blessed to take part in one of the most historic elections in my lifetime.

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

Nearly every major Religious Right organization opposing LGBT rights has commented on the Congressional Hearing on Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace, which was held on Thursday, June 26th. Here’s a look at what some of them have said.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays

P-FOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays), an organization that ostensibly concerns itself with supporting ex-gays and their families, but in practice expends most of its energy spouting rhetoric against “still-gays”, published a press release entitled “Congress Hearing to Push Gender Confusion on All Americans“on Wednesday.

The majority of the press release consists of quotes from P-FOX president Regina Griggs:

“Homosexuals and their transgender activist allies hope to use this hearing as a way of forcing the imposition of gender confusion upon all Americans. Instead of treating transsexualism and cross-dressing behaviors as Gender Identity Disorders (GID) as defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Democrats seem determined to make these behaviors into federally-protected minorities. Why should Congress force Americans to provide workplace accommodations for people who are confused about whether they’re male or female? How can Congress force us to make believe that a man is really a woman or a woman is really a man? If Democrats were truly concerned about these gender confused individuals, they’d push for expanded mental health services for GID. A person can’t change his or her sex – and many of these individuals think they’re a woman one day and a man the next day. Why is Congress catering to such insanity?”

My comments:

*Conservative Christian and anti-LGBT organizations routinely substitute “gender confusion” for the proper terms “Gender Identity Disorder” and “gender dysphoria”. At times, they even attempt to make it sound like a medically-recognized diagnosis, similar to their habit of referring to homosexuality as “Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD)“. Both terms are used and recognized only by their own institutions, not by credible medical and psychological organizations.

*When Griggs does refer to GID by its proper name, she misrepresents what the diagnosis entails. Cross-dressing in and of itself is not considered a mental disorder, although “transvestic fetishism” (cross-dressing primarily for masturbatory purposes– which is not representative of most cross-dressers) is. “Transvestic fetishism” is a separate diagnosis– not a form of GID. She erroneously conflates cross-dressing with transsexualism. Cross-dressers are not fundamentally unhappy living as the sex they were assigned at birth and are satisfied with wearing the clothes of the other sex part-time, whereas transsexual people have a gender identity fundamentally at odds with their birth sex and do not receive satisfactory psychological relief from occasionally wearing clothing of their identified gender. The next time Griggs references the DSM, she should consider cracking the thing open first. Furthermore, she neglects the fact that transition is the widely accepted treatment for GID– therapists treating transsexual patients adhere to the Standards of Care, a “roadmap” outlining the process of medical and social transition.

*TS individuals are not “confused about whether they’re male or female”. In order to be approved for medical transition, they must be quite certain of their gender identity– it just happens to differ from their biological sex and the gender they were assigned at birth.

*Employment anti-discrimination is not about making anyone “believe” anything– it is about protecting people from being fired (or not being hired) regardless of their abilities or qualifications, merely because they are transgender. If such legislation is enacted, transphobes will retain their right to believe whatever they want, but they will not be allowed to use those beliefs to justify discrimination or workplace harassment. Anti-discrimination laws are not “thought crime” laws.

*“A person can’t change his or her sex.” True. Biological (chromosomal) sex cannot be changed. The term “sex-change operation” is a misnomer, which is part of the reason that trans people and cisgender allies rarely use it. Gender identity cannot be changed either– it is stable in adults and probably determined by age four. This means that it is as stable in trans people as in cisgender people.

*”…many of these individuals think they’re a woman one day and a man the next day”. There is no evidence to support this statement– in fact, a diagnosis of GID rules this out. Griggs is likely referring to CDs– but again, their gender identity is stable, regardless of which clothing they are wearing. There are some people under the transgender umbrella who identify outside the gender binary, but they also have a stable gender identity– not the same as “think[ing] they’re a woman one day and a man the next day”.

The entire press release is nothing but a collection of ill-informed, unsupported opinions. As for its concluding sentence: “Tell Congress it’s time to provide equal access for ex-gays and former transgenders — they are the living proof that change is possible”– there is no evidence that “ex-gays and former transgenders [sic]“ don’t have “equal access” already. Nor is there hard evidence that “change is possible”– unless you define change as “a life of celibacy” or “living a lie”.

OneNewsNow

OneNewsNow, the American Family Association’s online news site, ran two articles on the hearing; one on Thursday, the other yesterday (Friday the 27th).

The June 26th article, “Gender confusion goes to the hill“, fails to site a single expert on law or GID (not even disreputable so-called “experts” like those affiliated with the discredited “reparative therapy” organization NARTH). Who did they choose to interview? “Americans for Truth about Homosexuality” founder/president Peter LaBarbera, who, before becoming a full-time LGBTphobe, worked in public policy.

LaBarbera trotted out the Religious Right’s favorite bogeywoman– trans women– attempting to scare OneNewsNow readers by perpetuating the inaccurate “men in dresses” stereotype: “According to LaBarbera, the transgender movement poses a problem for the ‘gay’ movement because when most people see ‘big bulky men in dresses’ they immediately ‘recoil.’” It never fails to amaze me how often AFTAH and similar groups portray trans women as hulking truck drivers in dresses, when they are perfectly aware of how unremarkable-looking and passable many trans women are– this is why MassResistance labels pictures of trans activists “This is a man!” (for trans women) or “This is a woman!” (for trans men). If they didn’t tell their readers the activists’ biological sex, they probably wouldn’t know.

LaBarbera added, “Small businesses could be forced to hire people embracing gender confusion. You have people in jobs that face the public such as a maitre d’ in a restaurant – a man decides that he is really a woman and he is going to start dressing as a woman… [It could] circumscribe the ability of an employer to not have a gender-confused person in the face of the public.”

Apparently trans people only have a right to work if they never “face the public”. And what job options does that leave, exactly?

OneNewsNow’s second article, “PFOX rips House Dems on transgender hearing“, is essentially an interview with Regina Griggs (author of the PFOX press release discussed above). Griggs’ opinions are unsupported and in many cases frankly ludicrous:

Regina Griggs, executive director of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), says no one should be discriminated against, but she does not think transgenders are the target of discrimination. “By and large, people feel sorry for them. These people have gender identity disorder; it’s a mental disorder,” she points out. “And Tammy [Baldwin] ought to be encouraging these people to seek help. You’re not born with the wrong brain — and it is impossible to change genders.”

Cross-dressers, argues Griggs, should not be classified as federally protected minorities. “I think it’s despicable that we are having people who are openly homosexual take [the side of] the transgender issue — neither one of these people [Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin] are transgendered,” she observes. “We’re not talking to the scientists,” Griggs notes. “We’re not talking to Dr. Paul McHugh, who stopped these sex changes at Johns Hopkins; he was head of the psychiatric department. We’re not talking to Richard Fitzgibbons, a child psychiatrist who has worked with people who have gender-identity disorder.”

The PFOX leader says there is nothing compassionate about putting the lives of gender-confused people in danger by promoting sex-change surgeries and hormones.

My response:

*Griggs “does not think transgenders [sic] are the target of discrimination”. What, exactly, is she basing this on? Certainly not these statistics, taken from reputable studies:

A study in the San Francisco Bay Area conducted in 2006 of 194 transgender individuals found a 35% unemployment rate, with 59% earning less than $15,300 annually.

Nationwide, the rates of employment discrimination against transgender people are consistently high. A Williams Institute review of six studies conducted in cities and regions on both coasts and the Midwest, showed the following ranges for experiences of discrimination based on gender identity:

13%-56% of transgender people had been fired
13%-47% had been denied employment
22%-31% had been harassed, either verbally or physically, in the workplace

She apparently doesn’t pay attention to the national news, either, since she missed the high-profile Susan Stanton case last year.

*The following sentence is probably the most laughable: “I think it’s despicable that we are having people who are openly homosexual take [the side of] the transgender issue — neither one of these people [Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin] are transgendered,” she observes.

Since when does a person have to be a member of a minority group in order to support equal treatment of that group? Plenty of people who are not trans themselves support equal rights for trans people. Plenty of heterosexuals support equal rights for LGB people. Frank and Baldwin are not speaking for trans people, but rather in support of them. (The same thing I try to do– I’m not trans, either.) They are not misrepresenting themselves.

And what, exactly, is especially “despicable” about “people who are openly homosexual tak[ing' the side of the transgender issue". My suspicion is that Griggs is opposed to those of us who are "openly homosexual" taking a stance on anything.

Richard Fitzgibbons, the "child psychiatrist who has worked with people who have gender-identity disorder", is a member of NARTH, the "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality". (See this article in which he states, "Strong physical attraction is present to other men's bodies and to the masculinity of others due to profound weakness in male confidence. These individuals... have a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual, insecurity that leads them to avoid close friendships with such males and an inordinate need for attention.") The American Psychological Association does not support reparative therapy, for the very good reasons that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and reparative therapy actually harms clients. In other words, Fitzgibbons is not credible.

As for McHugh, his current position contradicts his earlier research (performed in the 1970s), which, according to TS-Si, found that "most of the patients claimed happiness in their target sex... McHugh's conclusions [that the claims of happiness are irrelevant, because GID is "a mental disorder"] have been widely criticized, saying that the purpose of reassignment is to help transsexual people become happy and content with their bodies…. The consequences of Hopkins’ qualification policies were not included in the departmental review ordered by McHugh. Undocumented rumors abound concerning the fate of those transsexuals who failed to meet the Hopkins criteria for inclusion and were expelled from the program.” (The John Hopkins gender clinic evaluated patients on “passability” and required them to severe all ties with their families.) McHugh’s positions on (non-)treatment of GID are not mainstream.

The Traditional Values Coalition

TVC’s coverage of LGBT issues exceeds that of other far-right organizations in hatefulness and sensationalism almost without exception– and, considering the competition, that’s saying something. In fact, they’ve been officially designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The following poorly-punctuated diatribe is entitled “Americans Face Energy Crisis While House of Representatives Holds a She-Male Hearing!“:

“Americans face rising gasoline prices; and brave American soldiers are being killed on the battlefield to fight Islamic terrorism – while U.S. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) holds a hearing today on “discrimination” against drag queens and she-males in the workplace. What’s wrong with this picture?” asks TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.

“Why is the House of Representatives wasting taxpayer dollars to discuss whether or not drag queens or she-males are offended because of their cross-dressing or sexual behaviors in a business environment? I already know the answer: Because liberals like Robert Andrews are aggressively promoting the normalization of cross-dressing and transsexualism in our culture,” said Lafferty.

She continued: “This freak show must come to an end – and the House of Representatives should get back to important issues such as passing legislation to permit drilling for oil on our own sovereign territory and securing our borders from illegal immigration. The House should be passing legislation to protect the parental rights of girls who are driven across state lines for abortions; the House should pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act to protect conservative and religious broadcasters from efforts by liberals to reinstitute the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ – which will censor the airwaves.

“Let’s stop this nonsense of pretending that men who dress like women are normal and should be considered protected minorities under federal law. These are deeply disturbed individuals who need therapy not coddling and affirmation by a liberal majority in the House of Representatives. Rep. Andrews should be embarrassed and ashamed for holding such a useless hearing.”

TVC frequently uses the odious slur “she-male” to refer to pre-op/non-op trans women. They actually seem to think it’s a technical term– they frequently contrast “she-males” with “transsexuals” (which they use to refer to post-operative trans people exclusively) in their press releases and articles. They are also either unaware of the distinction between drag performers and trans people, or choose to ignore it.

It is really quite amusing that Lafferty starts out so bent out of shape about the Congressional Hearing on Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace– because Congress should be paying attention to rising fuel costs and the (conveniently undeclared) war in Iraq– and then, two paragraphs later, suggests that they should instead spend their time on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a pet project of the Far Right. She thinks it’s quite appropriate for Congress discuss legislation that isn’t a matter of national security– as long as it’s pro-conservative legislation.

Focus on the Family

The press release entitled “House Subcommittee Considers Protections for ‘Transgendered’ Individuals“, which appeared on Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink website Thursday, is blessedly brief and not particularly original, but does contain one rather ludicrous sentence:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said: “This hearing on alleged discrimination against people who self-identify as ‘transgender’ is simply a ruse to get ‘gender identity’ included the next time Congress tries to pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.”

Let’s look at the definition of the word “ruse”:

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (as cited on Dictionary.com), a “ruse” is “a crafty stratagem; a subterfuge”. In case Focus on the Family doesn’t know what a “subterfuge” is either, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “a deceptive stratagem or device”. In other words, in order for something to qualify as a “ruse”, you have to be hiding something or outright lying.

Of course the purpose of the hearing is to demonstrate the need for protections against discrimination for trans people, with the aim of getting legislation passed to put those protections in place– either as part of ENDA, or in a separate bill. Anyone with half a brain knows that. There is no “ruse” involved.

The Family Research Council

FRC briefly discussed the hearings on their Washington Update on Friday. In an attempt at wittiness, their piece was entitled “Trans-formers: Frank and Barney Host Cross-Dressers“. [I assume they meant Frank and Baldwin, as in "Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin".] FRC commented on some remarks made by Baldwin (yes, Baldwin) and Frank:

Baldwin emphasized that “all of us are created equal” — though how we were created is exactly what transvestites and transsexuals are rebelling against… Frank, meanwhile, insisted that the bill is “no license to misbehave or be bizarre,” but he was apparently ignorant of the fact that for a man to wear a dress is inherently bizarre…

FRC’s religious beliefs to the contrary, even if someone does something you disagree with (such as transition), they are still endowed with the same rights as any other citizen. Conservative Christians’ opinion that they are “rebelling against God” is irrelevant from the standpoint of Constitutional law. (They predictably ignore the fact that there is increasing evidence that transsexualism may be due to prenatal influences such as hormonal fluctuations in utero.)

Frank’s statement about “misbehav[ing] or be[ing] bizarre” presumably refers to conservatives’ fear that legislation protecting gender presentation in the workplace will result in everyone showing up at work in negligees– violating corporate dress codes and other company policies. As for “men” (actually trans women) wearing female clothing being “inherently bizarre”– bizarre is in the eye of the beholder. Just about everyone who is not a religious fundamentalist, including pretty much the entire population of Europe, finds FRC’s support of creationism (a.k.a. Intelligent Design) bizarre beyond belief.

(Side note: Has anyone ever pointed out to these people that trans women, like women in general, do not in fact always wear dresses?)

Concerned Women for America

CWA’s Friday press release “He said, she said: ‘Transgender’ individuals demand recognition by Congress” is brief enough that I will repost it in full:

Washington, D.C.: Yesterday, the House Committee on Education and Labor held the first-ever hearing on “transgender discrimination”. Last November, the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would prohibit discrimination of employees based on “sexual orientation”, but removed language from the bill that included “gender identity” protections.

“This hearing appears to be a step toward passing legal restrictions against identifying men as men, and women as women,” said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA). “‘Gender identity’ is a fluid term that is difficult to nail down. On top of that, advocates want to restrict the ‘perception’ of gender identity.

“This would be a prescription for crazy lawsuits to make easy money or to excuse possibly criminal behavior by claiming discrimination. Businesses, government entities, non-profits and religious organizations would be caught between protecting their employees and customers and appeasing complainants who are confused — or confuse others– about their sex. Men who get caught in women’s locker rooms with little girls present could claim that they ‘perceive’ themselves to be women.”

Concerned Women for America supports legal protections of all human beings and the common sense right to distinguish between men and women.

Response (ignoring points that have already been addressed above):

*“Advocates” don’t want to “restrict the ‘perception’ of gender identity”, we want to restrict discrimination on the basis of perception of gender identity. “Discrimination on the basis of perception of gender identity” means that someone is discriminated against because someone else thinks the person is trans, when in fact they are not. This could happen to conservative Christians too, Ms. Wright!

*Wright heavily implies that trans people are inherently dangerous– other employees allegedly need to be protected from them. This is not only defamatory, it is untrue– trans people do not commit crimes against people in bathrooms. According to Associate Professor of Law Jillian Weiss, who has written extensively on transgender issues :

“Bathrooms and dressing rooms bring up a question that I often get in my consulting practice: What if someone just pretends to have a female gender identity, but they do so falsely in order to obtain sexual gratification from the presence of females? This is of great concern for many people, who feel that, while they would like to respect a transgender employee’s gender identity, to do so would conflict with the rights of female employees. My answer is that, after a decade of work in this field, I have never heard of a situation where a person used a false claim of gender identity for that purpose. I have certainly heard of a few cases where a man dressed as a woman in order to commit a crime and escape detection (though of course, having heard of the cases, the attempts were obviously not successful). I have also heard about men committing crimes in women’s bathrooms. But these cases all involved an attempt to escape notice, not to call attention to false claims about gender identity. More significantly, those cases were not spurred by the passage of a gender identity non-discrimination law. Now what if, you think, what if some crafty male, spurred by this new law, were to come up with a lascivious plan to lurk in the women’s restroom and then, when confronted by the police about his harassing behavior, claim that he was entitled to commit harassment because of his gender identity? The answer is that harassing behavior is not permitted regardless of one’s gender. If I am standing in the women’s restroom and the woman next to me puts her hand on my thigh, that’s harassment, and it doesn’t matter if she claims gender identity issues or not.” [my emphasis]

*“Men who get caught in women’s locker rooms with little girls present could claim that they ‘perceive’ themselves to be women.” To be permitted to use a women’s bathroom, a biologically male person would have to do a lot more than claim that they “felt” female. They would have to actively transition. As in, take large amounts of estrogen and anti-androgens that would, among other things, render them impotent. Which is not something the average sex offender would agree to.

To me, the most interesting line in this press release is referring to trans people as “…[people] who are confused — or confuse others– about their sex…”. By the time they transition, trans people themselves aren’t confused– they are required to be quite certain, or they can’t receive clearance from a psychologist to begin the process. What Wright really means is in the second part of her statement. Trans people confuse others– and this is the heart of the issue. The Religious Right wants to reserve the right to discriminate against people who confuse them.

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

On June 20th, the Associated Press released an article entitled “New transgender policy at New York juvenile jails“. The article details New York State’s decision to allow transgender youth in juvenile detention facilities to be treated as members of their identified gender.

The Family Research Council commented on the article later that day in a brief blurb entitled “NY Prison: Closet Supporters of Cross-Dressing” which appeared on their Washington Update. Predictably, they grossly misrepresented New York’s policy, twisting the statements in the AP article.

According to the FRC, ” As part of the ‘anti-discrimination’ policy, New York is dedicating taxpayer dollars to providing transgender kids with both a male and female wardrobe.”

This is a misrepresentation of the following paragraph in the original AP article: “All residents must wear a uniform, but the policy allows transgender youth to wear a uniform of the opposite sex, including underwear of their choice. Each facility must have underwear for both sexes. Borges said OCFS spent about $4,500 to stock its facilities.”

While FRC implies that each of the 30 transgender youths will be supplied with complete wardrobes of both genders, the AP article makes it clear that each individual youth will have only one wardrobe. AP continues, “…most clothing requests will be referred to the special committee to ensure their legitimacy…”. Thus, while all juvenile jails will now stock both male and female undergarments, they are presumably not required to have a large number of undergarments on hand– just enough that clothing requests approved by a committee can be granted. As for the purported burden on New York taxpayers, according to the the United States Census Bureau, the estimated population of New York State in 2006 was 19,306,183. 76.6% of New York residents are over 18 years of age. This means that each adult New Yorker paid less than one cent to clothe transgender teens.

FRC continues, “In addition to their clothes, officers are required to call these inmates by whatever name they choose…” True, but officers are already required to call all teens in custody– cisgender as well as transgender– by whichever name they choose. As AP states, “While all residents may ask to be called by a preferred first name rather than their legal one, the policy says males who believe they are female must be called ’she’ and females who believe they are male must be referred to as ‘he.’ Staff must use the preferred name and pronoun in any documents they file.” [my emphasis]

In other words, the new policy affects pronoun usage, not preferred names. And contrary to what the FRC would claim, being referred to by gender-appropriate pronouns is not a “special right”. The majority of youth in custody, who are cisgender, already enjoy the right to be referred to by pronouns congruent with their gender identity– because in their case, their gender identity conforms to their biological sex. The new policy merely extends this right to a previously excluded group.

Most disturbingly, FRC completely ignores the reason that the new policy was implemented– the increased risk of mistreatment faced by trans youth in juvenile facilities, perpetrated both by staff and by other inmates, is well-documented. Here are some examples from “Justice for all?“, a report published in 2001 by the Urban Justice Center.

“…a young transgendered girl sentenced to a juvenile facility on robbery charges was arbitrarily labeled a sex offender by staff, made to wear clothes designating sex offenders in the facility, and told to participate in sex offender therapy.” (p. 11)

“Another transgendered girl was placed in isolation at every facility she attended, since staff believed that she would inappropriately touch other residents.” (p. 12)

“One transgendered youth who spent three weeks in a DJJ facility was placed in the infirmary, despite the fact that she insisted consistently that she wanted to remain in the general population like everyone else. The same youth has been living in the observation room at an OCFS facility for three months as of January 2001, whereas other residents spend at most one week in observation.” (p. 33)

“…one transgendered youth described her experience, ‘Most people [in here] are stupid. They treat me like I’m not human. They call me ‘faggot’ and tell me I have no life.’ She continued to relate how, at the limited-secure OCFS facility where she is currently placed, she is regularly verbally abused and taunted by other residents.” (p. 36-37)

“One transgendered girl told of a situation in detention in which one boy hit her over the head while others pulled her hair. There were no staff people around, and so when she told a staff person of the incident, the staff person said there was nothing she could do.” (p. 37)

The purpose of New York’s new nondiscrimination policy is to protect trans youth from harassment– from being punished not only for their crimes (typically “survival crimes” such as theft and prostitution, committed by youths who run away from or are “thrown away” by abusive parents or foster homes), but for their sense of themselves as male or female. The rights to use their chosen names and appropriate pronouns, and to present as the gender with which they identify, will protect them from psychological distress. Being granted private sleeping quarters and showering facilities will protect their physical safety.

FRC apparently doesn’t care that the new policy will keep vulnerable teenagers from being incorrectly treated as sex offenders or physically assaulted. According to them, “The only difference that these concessions are going to make is in the widespread encouragement of special rights for cross-dressing teens.” (The right not to be physically and psychologically tortured sure is special, isn’t it?)

Their recommended solution? “…these disturbed young people need psychotherapy aimed at helping them to accept their biological sex.”

Actually, the AP article strongly implies that the trans teens are already receiving mental health care: “Under the policy, transgender youth may request placement based on gender identity. Those requests will be heard by a special committee composed of behavioral health and medical services experts as well as administrators.” [my emphasis] The therapy, however, will likely focus on reducing comorbid conditions including depression, not be “helping them to accept their biological sex”. Why? Because “reparative therapy” doesn’t work. Transition does. [See Cabaj and Stein, 1996, p. 758-759: ...Sexual reassignment including hormone therapy and surgery has been shown to be an effective treatment for a large number of these [gender dysphoric / transsexual] patients who otherwise would exist in constant emotional distress and socioeconomic despair…]

From FRC’s misrepresentation of the new New York policy and their neglect to mention the harassment faced by trans youth, it is clear that they have no real interest in the teens’ well-being. They see these vulnerable young people only as fodder to use to inflame their supporters against equal protection for LGBT citizens.

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

In March I wrote a post called “The Many Faces Of Mara Keisling: The Death of United ENDA?” in which I put forth the theory that the coalition of over 300 groups was dead. In April I wrote “Starting From Scratch:The Death of United ENDA Part II” in which I furthered my theory by pointing out the words of Matt Foreman (the departing executive director of NGLTF) that alluded to the death of United ENDA.

Yesterday I received an email from NCTE regarding the upcoming hearings :

“I am really proud of the role that NCTE played in getting us to this historical day. This is not only an opportunity to be truly heard by our fellow Americans, it will help to build the foundation for significant changes in federal laws protecting transgender people from discrimination. Witness have not yet been announced.” - NCTE newsletter

According to my sources, the role that NCTE and NGLTF has played in these hearings has been minimal. This only reinforced Donna Rose’s blog post from March 3rd which I referred to in my post.

“During our conversation today HRC came up several times. Joe (Racalto, Barney Frank’s senior policy adviser) went out of his way to assure me that HRC is taking the lead in these hearings in many ways. As far as our community is concerned I’ll take his word for it and let it all unfold….”

And most recently from HRC email:

“HRC has been a key player in working with Congressman Andrews, and well as Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) in ensuring that this critical hearing took place. We have also has been working with a coalition of groups, including the ACLU, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in preparing for the hearing.

HRC is activating resources throughout the organization in support of this hearing. Our own Diego Sanchez, member of the Business Council and the Boston Steering Committee, has been invited to testify at the hearing. Workplace Project staff are garnering letters of support and written testimony from corporate America, and another member of the Business Council, Meghan Stabler, will also be submitting testimony for the record. The Religion and Faith Program has secured written testimony from Religion Council member Reverend Erin Swenson and is soliciting statements of support from other faith leaders and groups. Our Web Team is working to ensure that the hearing, and all of our resources on transgender issues, are highlighted on our website and the Communications Department is using its connections to secure extensive coverage of this historic event. And, of course, the folks in Political and Legal are working closely with witnesses, congressional staff and coalition partners to ensure the hearing is the most productive discussion of this critical issue possible.

More information about the hearing will be posted on the committee’s website here — http://edlabor.house.gov/committee/schedule.shtml — when it becomes available, and the subcommittee hearing will likely be webcast there as well.

We’re very excited that HRC is part of this historic hearing!

Keep in mind that in January of this year Keisling said:

“Our official position right now is we are extremely disappointed and angry at HRC. … The real bottom line is right now NCTE will not do anything that will rehabilitate HRC as a legitimate spokesman for transgender people … until they stop actively hurting trans people’, said Keisling. She characterized HRC’s advocacy of the sexual orientation-only version of ENDA in the House, as well as its expected lobbying to pass the bill this year in the Senate, as hurting trans people.

As for NCTE’s future plans for ENDA, Keisling said that after the election she expects advocates to lobby a new Congress and a new president in favor of passing a trans-inclusive ENDA bill.

‘It is our expectation that in 2009 Congress is going to hear from a very united LGBT movement,’ said Keisling. ‘Whether that includes HRC I have no idea.’ - Trans-HRC schism widens”

Those words ring solidly hollow, as the United ENDA coaliton now swings from the gallows. Especially given the fact that HRC admits that NCTE and NGLTF have worked together to organize the hearings.

“Herwitt said a coalition of LGBT and civil rights organizations, including HRC, NCTE, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, have been coordinating strategy for the hearing and have been meeting and talking regularly. ”

What is obvious in all this is how anemic NCTE and NGLTF have become (especially since the departure of Matt Foreman, and most recently David Noble, from NGTLF). It also shows that the HRC is still the gatekeeper to Congress. With the reality of that situation some very important questions need to be asked:

1. Do we keep asking the HRC to include us?
2. Should we try and shame them into caring about our issues as much as they care about their own?
3. Should we continue to give money to groups that support this pathway to equality?

The answer to these questions are vital. The coming years will be a time to rebuild the movement. We need to talk about what our next move as a community is. Like any death, it is a time to reflect on how the end of this life mattered to us, and what we can do to change our own future.

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

Did you know that there are going to be congressional hearings about transgender employment discrimination? No? Well, you’re not alone in your ignorance. I have to confess that even though I’m connected into Washington D.C. fairly well, I’ve not heard a firm date for these “TOP SECRET” hearings. Donna Rose said on May 28th, 2008:

The congressional hearing on Transgender Workplace Discrimination has been scheduled for the morning of June 10.

Then on June 2nd, 2008 she said:

Speaking of Congressman Frank, the Congressional Hearing on Transgender Workplace Descrimination, tentatively scheduled for a week from tomorrow (95% sure), is pretty much ready to roll. The invitations have been sent to the speakers (there will be 4 of them so if you thought you might be one of them but haven’t heard yet - you’re not). There will be a post-hearing event featuring supporters in Congress. Everything seems set.

While that seems to be the consensus in the transgender community, my sources on the Hill have said that the hearing has been moved to June 17th. I’m not sure why it took covert ops to find this information out. I know a few folks that would like to attend the hearings (they’re open to the public). But the odds of that are small unless you live in the Metro D.C. area. The actual time and location have not been disclosed. I have to wonder why these hearings are so damn inaccessible and secretive.

Most of the time I feel great joy in being right, but today isn’t one of those days. I’ve said repeatedly that United ENDA is dead ( here and here). And I’ve said that we had better plan on not being in ENDA.

The fight for an inclusive ENDA in October and November of 2007 had a lot of support in the community because most people realized that this the bill would never make it to the president’s desk. Will these organizations stand firm in their commitment, even though gays and lesbians will be denied protections? Will gays and lesbian communities support opposing workplace protections until gender identity is included?

I ask these questions because I see on the horizon a brewing battle that could look something like Sherman’s scorched earth policy during the Civil War. There is a potential for the coming storm to rip through the community and cause irreparable damage. I hope that this is talked about long before it happens (unlike the removal of gender identity from ENDA).

For myself, I plan on moving towards allies that are more focused on gender equality and away from GLB organizations. I’ll still fight for marriage equality with these organizations (and as a member of some of them), but I believe that our most natural allies lie more with social justice organizations who are fighting for gender equality.

Many people in the transgender community are making great strides in political and business circles. With the death of an inclusive ENDA (and with it United ENDA), it would be perfect time to retool, reevaluate, and refocus our direction and our movement.

Some of us have repeatedly been warning others of those storm clouds brewing. In return for pointing this out, we’ve been called misinformed, and have been accused of starting rumors. Yet Congressman Barney Frank continues to move transgender people farther and farther away from a fully inclusive ENDA. According to the Washington Blade:

Frank indicated Wednesday that the House may consider a separate trans bill. He said he spoke with Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) Tuesday about the issue.

To give you an idea of what that means, I’d point to New York as an example. In December of 2002, the New York state legislature passed an ENDA type bill called SONDA (Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act without gender identity protections. It’s been a long six years for the people of New York since its passage. Only until recently did the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) measure pass New York’s State Assembly. The word I’m getting from my friends in New York is that it has very little chance of passage in the Republican controlled Senate.

Without gender identity protections in ENDA it will probably be left to the same fate. A federal GENDA bill looks more and more distant. Meanwhile gender variant people will continue to be legally discriminated against. As my friend Ethan St. Pierre says, “For many gender variant people, being fired from a job is a death sentence.” I have to wonder how many years and people it will take before protections are attained.

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

Dr. Marshall Forstein, Chair of the Work Group on Practices Guidelines on HIV Psychiatry for the American Psychiatric Association (not to be confused with the American Psychological Association), has written a reply to the drive to have Drs. Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard removed from the Work Group developing the revisions for “Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders” for the planned DSM-V. In it, he writes:

“I hope that what I have written makes us pause a bit before we do something to alienate even our supporters and friends in the American Psychiatric and the American Psychological Association who have been very pro-gay and pro-trans in their deliberations so far. There will always be a vocal minority that claim otherwise, but the process is vetted by many people committed to scientific integrity and evidence.”

I and others have been accused of scaremongering in the ongoing debate(s) surrounding this issue. Dr. Forstein has some excellent points for us to examine. Some of the other aspects and debates, though, I still stand behind.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

For those who are concerned about the establishment of an adherent to reparative therapy (Dr. Kenneth Zucker) and another seeking to entrench “autogynephilia” (a pathologization of treatment of non- “homosexual transgender” transfolk) in the DSM-V, there have been some new happenings.

One letter writer reports receiving an email from the APA which states that:

“The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, chaired by Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., will have 13 members who will form three subcommittees:

* Gender Identity Disorders, chaired by Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Ph.D.
* Paraphilias, chaired by Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.
* Sexual Dysfunctions, chaired by R. Taylor Segraves, M.D., Ph.D.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

For those that are working on a political campaign, the day after the election feels like a balloon that suddenly loses all it’s air. Win or lose, the day after is always a time to rest and take stock of what happened.

I volunteered with the Obama campaign’s Indiana LGBT Steering Committee. This was the first time I’ve ever felt so inspired by a candidate that I gave my time and effort fully to them.

In the midst of working for the Obama team, I really found a passion. In the past politics was something I watched on Sunday morning, much like football fans do. I was a watcher, but not active in it. With this campaign, that changed.

But with all the campaign work I’ve done, family events, starting a non-profit, blogging, and all the other things I’ve been doing, Transadvocate has suffered. I’ve been averaging about a post a week on Transadvocate, and that really isn’t fair to my readership or to my sponsors.

As of right now, I’m on hiatus from blogging on the main page. This hiatus will last till November. If anyone has a desire to continue blogging the main page, email me marti.abernathey@gmail.com. Most likely, I’m going to run the other Transadvocate bloggers through the front page. Getting Andre Carson, Ken Kern, and Barack Obama elected is my focus for now.

We need these equality minded people in office. And transgender people need to work hard to see that they do. I’m putting my money where my mouth is.

I’m doing it for me, for my friend Mel, and for her daughter. The next election will be historic in so many ways. We need to be present. We need to be visible. We need to be a part of history. I plan on doing my part and I hope you do too.

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

(crossposted in several places, and people are welcome to forward this on freely to others in the transgender and GLBT communities, as I see this as being very serious — Mercedes)

A short time ago, I’d discussed the movement to have “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID, a.k.a. “Gender Dysphoria”) removed from the DSM-IV or reclassified, and how we needed to work to ensure that any such change was an improvement on the existing model, rather than a scrapping or savaging of it.

Lynn Conway reports that on May 1st, 2008, the American Psychiatric Association named its work group members appointed to revise the Manual for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders in preparation for the DSM-V. Such a revision would include the entry for GID.

On the Task Force, named as Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair, we find Dr. Kenneth Zucker, from Toronto’s infamous Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH, formerly the Clarke Institute). Dr. Zucker is infamous for utilizing reparative (i.e. “ex-gay”) therapy to “cure” gender-variant children. Named to his work group, we find Zucker’s mentor, Dr. Ray Blanchard, Head of Clinical Sexology Services at CAMH and creator of the theory of autogynephilia, categorized as a paraphilia and defined as “a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at TransAdvocate. You can comment here or there.

In March I said:

“Essentially it’s business as usual for HRC. Nothing has substantially changed in their lobbying efforts. They’ve had no “’rehabilitative”’ moment or change of heart. If you take Keisling’s words to heart, the only other conclusion that seems logical is that United ENDA is dead.”

Recently Matt Foreman said:

” ‘Congress is a creature of history,’ Foreman said. ‘If lightning strikes and it passes the Senate, it will more than likely be the broken ENDA that is introduced next year because it will have passed both houses. That was the tragedy of the broken ENDA passing the House in the first place.’

Even if the Frank version of ENDA does not go into 2009 with the wind at its back, Foreman is not 100 percent confident that the situation can be righted. Asked whether HRC and the 300-plus dissident groups have come to a meeting of the minds, he said flatly, ‘No. Not that I’m aware of.’‘ ”

If you take these words to heart, the future for a fully inclusive LGBT Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is bleak. With that in mind, some really tough questions need to be asked and debated. Will organizations like the Equality Federation, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Stonewall Democrats, BiNet USA, COLAGE, DignityUSA, Freedom to Marry, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, GLSEN, Lambda Legal, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Pride At Work, Empire State Pride Agenda, Equal Rights Colorado, Equal Rights Washington, Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, Equality Alabama, Equality Arizona, Equality California, Equality Florida, Equality Illinois, Equality Maine, Equality Maryland, Equality New Mexico, Equality North Carolina, Equality Ohio, Equality South Dakota, Equality Texas, Equality Utah, Equality Virginia, Fair Wisconsin, Indiana Equality, Indiana Fairness Alliance, Michigan Equality, Triangle Foundation, or Wyoming Equality stand AGAINST a bill that will surely pass both houses and be signed by the president? Should they be expected to?

The fight for an inclusive ENDA in October and November of 2007 had a lot of support in the community because most people realized that this the bill would never make it to the president’s desk. Will these organizations stand firm in their commitment, even though gays and lesbians will be denied protections? Will gays and lesbian communities support opposing workplace protections until gender identity is included?

I ask these questions because I see on the horizon a brewing battle that could look something like Sherman’s scorched earth policy during the Civil War. There is a potential for the coming storm to rip through the community and cause irreparable damage. I hope that this is talked about long before it happens (unlike the removal of gender identity from ENDA).

For myself, I plan on moving towards allies that are more focused on gender equality and away from GLB organizations. I’ll still fight for marriage equality with these organizations (and as a member of some of them), but I believe that our most natural allies lie more with social justice organizations who are fighting for gender equality.

Many people in the transgender community are making great strides in political and business circles. With the death of an inclusive ENDA (and with it United ENDA), it would be perfect time to retool, reevaluate, and refocus our direction and our movement.