"Gay" once was used as an umbrella term, but it's pretty hard to say that it's an effective umbrella now. When you say gay, very few people will think of bi folks too. And if anyone thinks a bill that protects "gays" rather than "LGBT" will be worth shit for trans people then there's education to be done.

we're still "fags" and "dykes," as far as outsiders are concerned.

Surprisingly, that's something I could get behind. Screw the sexual orientation alphabet soup, the new umbrella is Fags & Dykes. Or maybe FDPT. Hmmm, better make that DFPT. Okay, I got it, it's DFPT, not LGBT.

...

Hey, why are people still arguing instead of uniting. I'm a charismatic leaderm, aren't I? -- If you don't all support my new idea, then it must be that you're all unwilling to work together.

I think Tobi has the right idea here, and I agree. Whenever I hear "When will we stop in-fighting?" it usually means "When will everyone just stop talking and agree with meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?!!!" Queer folk have little use for such calls.

And the queer MLK won't ever appear. We need to stop waiting for her and try to get some work done.

Oh, and about the alphabet soup, I thought we all agreed to "queer" 15 years ago? If you say no, be prepared to be accused of petty in-fighting. :)

Jere, your comment hits the nail right on the head.

Mr. Corbin, your rhetoric shows you to be out of touch with the issues that affect our diverse communities. If the "leadership" fails to address our actual needs and concerns, then the grassroots should speak out. Your remarks grossly oversimplify the reality of the situation, and reality is often messy.

It sounds to me like you're trying to shape reality to fit your politics. But politics must serve the real needs of people, not vice versa.

... or contribute their cash!

Eloquently put, Kelly...

and the attitude of the author was pretty much summed up in the statement "First it was the gay movement"

Sorry Sir, I believe that the trans people had a turn or two with civil disobedience before that...and Lesbians were in court in the UK for the "Cult of the Clitoris" case, and Natalie Barney was proclaiming to the world "I am a Lesbian" back in the 1920's

And your Obama credentials cut no ice with the grassroots of the movement since Rick Warren, Donnie McLurkin and now the DOMA fiasco.

Strongly agree. Half of us are womyn. Some of the men are attracted to womyn. The use of the gay label for the entire queer community silences womyn's voices, and silences straight trans men's voices. Our society as a whole is rife with male privilege and having the gays speak for the rest of the community embeds this privilege in queer discourse.

Dys, you need to write more (or get it out where we can see it). That was frakking great!

Which why not only have I outlined a strategy, i've stuck around to defend it.

Of course, this is what we expect from someone who raised 50K for the HRC...

Stampp,

I honestly do value that, having grown up with my parents' gay and lesbian community, I understand how queer is unexceptable to older generations. It may surprise you, though, to hear that many people under 30 find "gay" an unacceptable term and queer as the best available alternative (it's often preferable to the alphabet soup).

A friend of mine told me about how he had never once heard queer used in a negative sense, but going through high school he heard gay used in a negative sense every day. It got to the point where hearing gay made him cringe in the same way a lot of older folks describe responding to the term queer. I realized my experience was almost identitcal. Personally, I'm queer. I'm not gay. It's not just a word I don't like, the way lesbian is, but it's a word that doesn't apply to me.

When I was doing outreach I once profiled someone as a person who would be offended by the word queer so I used the word gay instead -- they were so offended and after telling me that they weren't gay but were poly they refused to talk to me anymore.

When I do organizing work, I feel I'm left at an impasse. As you point out, there is no one term that everyone can feel represented by. I've heard of folks coming up with unique names that reference us without naming our identities: The Rainbow Alliance as an example. But one thing I've gotten very used to and no longer see as a barrier to organizing is having a fluidity of language. I can use queer with some people and gay with others. Most of the time it's not like my above example and I have little to no problems around being flexible to people's individual preferences.

No, it isn't the problem.

It is *a* problem, which is why Queer -- as offensive to many of us as it might be coming from leftover days -- works better for the larger number of people affected by the actions us over 40 types work towards.

The problem is perpetuating separation and willingness to sacrifice and compromise and *wait* for someone to do something.

The problem is what worked in the past does not work anymore. Time to find new ways.

For the last six and a half years, I have. I formed one of a handful national transgender organizations in this country, the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA.) Yes, we are specialized in what we advocate for, but we do a damn good job with less money then what HRC spends for toilet paper in one month for their opulent digs in DC. There are others out there. You might do a little research before you let your fingertips dance over the keyboard without your mind's guidance.

Um, you're kidding, right? You're citing Elizabeth Birch, the woman who when she was ED of HRC famously declared that transpeople would be included in ENDA "over my dead body"? That's who you're citing as a proponent of transgender rights?

No wonder everyone assumes you're still with HRC and/or representing them here. Perhaps if you deviated from the "official" HRC rhetoric even a little bit more people might assume you're actually speaking for yourself rather than the org (the quotes because no one knows what their actual agenda is since they still refuse to publicly engage in any real way with the rest of the community).

Here's the reality, Mr. Corbin: This community has long since moved past your kind of thinking. The days of the Mattachine Society are long over, as are the days when no one bothered to look beyond the first letter of GLBT.

We'll be able to consider working together again when HRC and other like-minded activists begin using modern advocacy techniques that take into account the social and political realities of this century.

Right now, HRC and their allies are still behaving like it's still the 90's. They still want to hide the reality of the lives of lower and middle class LGBT's and instead make it seem like we all have good jobs and Brooks Brothers suits.

No wonder one of the most popular right-wing attacks is to claim that we don't need hate crimes and employment protections because we're all rich and happy. HRC has been promoting this stereotype for decades and it's only now that Congress and the rest of America are coming to realize that what HRC has been telling them all this time about our lives is nothing more than a carefully constructed, well-polished lie.

The fact is, Mr. Corbin, we tried it your way, and it failed miserably. Not only didn't we make any real political progress at the federal level during the 80's and 90's using the HRC "We're really just like you." meme, but things became incalculably worse through the passage of DOMA, DADT, and marriage bans in 90% of American states.

This method also failed to gain any real traction in Congress during the Bush Administration, as evidenced by the complete and utter failure to make any notable progress at the federal level until the very end, once it was clear to all that Barack Obama was likely to be our next President.

It's time for America to know exactly who and what we are, the bad parts as well as the good parts. The American public needs to see that there's just as much depth and nuance in our lives as in their own. Not only is it more honest just in general, but it's a far more effective way of demonstrating to the American public that the visible differences between us are much less important than the values we share as Americans and as fellow human beings.

It's far more credible to demand civil rights protections if you show why they're needed. The American public is evolving on these issues and we ourselves need to evolve with them.

America is ready to hear the truth about LGBT lives, all of it. Now is not the time to homogenize and water down that truth, but rather to cast it in detailed high relief and introduce America to every nuance of it.

Only when we've accomplished that task will we truly have the right to say "We're really just like you.".

And what exactly is your intention is saying this? Is it a defensive need to respond to negate criticism you feel included in? Because surely you know enough of the history to know that trans folks have more than just a legitimate complaint.

I recall PFLAG, most state orgs, and ever other LGBT group I worked with added trans by 2001 and pledged to only support inclusive legislation. So when HRC did it in 2003 that doesn't seem like an accomplishment. Especially because the HRC vote was specific to an inclusive ENDA, not all legislation, and less then a year later was pushing a non-inclusive hate crimes bill.

That's not even getting into what's happened in 2007 and 2008.

But that brings me back to the issue of unification. I agree it would be great, but my overall fear is that the charismatic leader or top-down talking points won't support me. If we could rally behind someone who honestly supports us all, that'd be great.

And one thing that's been bothering me is your reference of the Task Force as "too tranny". I know, it's not you but others who say that. But if one national group is too representative of traditionaly excluded populations, and another is too exclusive of traditionally excluded populations, and your goal is unification, isn't the answer obvious?

You want us all to unify, I'll call you on that and hope it's not a bluff - why not pick the Task Force as a group to make your call to unity around. It'd be a compromise for me too, but I'd join in because at least I feel confident they won't stab me in the back and they listen to criticism.

IF the HRC is the one that "put the T in LGBT", then why was it necessary, given that your premise is that we shouldn't be separating us?

One of the things I agreed with was that we do allow for the acrnym to perpetuate our division -- particular on a subcommunicative level.

Nd here, s a defense of what is still ultimately your first position, you are using an example where a group that was significantly responsible for creating that division (albeit not by itself nor wholly with the blame) maintained it.

HRC is, point blank, still an enemy to transfolk. You apparently are just now learning that, which bodes piss poor for the other members of the Board who are still there.

HRC is not a frind to transpeople. The history there is "add us for the money". Which is cool because even at 5 bucks a head, there are a hell of a lot more T folks than there are the rest.

Lest you forget, it was pissed off queens that rioted.

And we are pissed off again. Truth is, while some of us bash other orgs, the majority of us really find the HRC to be, well, scum of the earth barely worthy of scraping off our heels.

And it is not *just* 2007. It is the full history of the last decade (and even more before that).

So, pretty obviously, one f the first solutions to your problem as described, is to stop using the HRC as a beacon, or an example, of positive effort.

Because this isn't only transfolk. This is LGB folks who hold that for an organization to be worthy of us and our time it has to do somethng.

The sole savior to the HRC thus far is the CEI. ANd as was already noted, it sucks. Worse, its *insulting*.

The top 100 best companies to work for as LGBT (and they do include the T there, so they *must* mean it as well, with equal fervor) resoundingly suck for transfolk.

Some have 100% scores and offer only training to management and the same disability leave they offer anyone, counting it as a trans benefit.

Hello? Ya there?

I *am* antagonizing. I do it within, without, and all around the community. Sometimes that antagonizing means I'm going to call someone out when they speak a delusion.

Such as you have.

Other times it means I'm going to work hard to inspire and remind everyone that we are all in this together, and that we are only separate because we allow us to.

Just as often it means I'll stand there and nod and mutter in line when something good is said and done.

We do not need a single monolithic entity. indeed, the day and time and place for that is done with.

Now we need our thousand thousands, all over the country, burning at once.

That sorta screws up the whole deal of the big orgs.

TO use a Christian parallel, we need to stop letting the Emperor and the organized ones rule, and let the gnostics have their turn.

Ditto!

Justice claimed, "As it is now, a post op transgendered person can marry their partner, as long as they are of a different sex."

This is not true. As a transsexual woman, in most of the US my marriage to either a man or a woman would remain subject to legal challenge and invalidation. Intolerant judges are free to capriciously label transpeople, regardless of transition status as our assigned birth sex for purposes of dissolving marriage under state DOMA laws.

Yes, the HRC is doing something, much of it constructive. However, the HRC is still rewarding employers who deny equitable health coverage to trans-employees with "perfect" 100% CEI scores. They have so far refused to change this harmful policy until Jan, 2012. See my March 10 Post for details.

These are but two examples of the concern among transpeople of being erased, pushed to invisibility, within the G/l movement.

Justice, I agree with much of your sentiment but I feel put off by much of what you are saying. As Kelley pointed out, trans marriages aren't a done deal, but additionally I'll point out:

As it is now, a post op transgendered person can marry their partner, as long as they are of a different sex. Gay men and woman still can not.

Um, gays, lesbians and bisexuals CAN "marry their partner, as long as they are of a different sex." You're right that the fact that some trans people can marry their chosen partner isn't reason to not talk about them, but lets keep in mind that some bi people can marry their chosen partner, and that a smaller number of gays and lesbians can marry their chosen partner. I myself know a few lesbians happily married to men. Also:

Whine about the HRC all you will, but at least they are doing something. Do you have your own rights group? Good for you, when do we get to decide what its called?

I'll admit I'm not perfect at avoiding antagonism, but if I were writing a call to end infighting I think that'd be pretty essential. When you dismiss other's concerns by calling it whining you're not helping to end the infighting. Demanding other's show their own activist cred before being taken seriously is similarly demeaning. But to answer your two questions there, 1) Yes. 2) Every five years or so when we do strategic planning and survey our constituency about a lot of things including their criticism of our name then try to incorporate their feedback.

Justice,

It is childish to point out that if you want a single large org that it had better represent everyone instead of a few?

Are you daft? I might need to grow up, but at least I still can, without being calcified into an "everyone must grow up" mindset that ignores some basic realities for others.

You are right, we don't need another letter. As was noted, we don't need *any* letters. We need a concept that embraces the single most diverse identity movement in the last 100 years.

Good luck with that.

As it is now, a transperson can *sometimes* marry their partner (post op or not). Relatively rare -- most transfolk are bi or gay or lesbian, so you know. And it depends on the state, as well -- and changes as you travel across the country.

I realize your lie was out of a lack of awareness of just how complicated the fight for marriage equality has made thngs for transfolk, but know that they do benefit in many cases from it -- but not all. In some places, regardless of the changes to allow it, marriage will still involve deeply offensive and personally denying realities.

You have not the same excuse for the lie about gay men and women being able to get married.

THe HRC is doing somethng? What are they doing? Seriously. As a political force, what is it they are doing? Does it embrace *everyone*?

You do, however, highlight one of the more important thngs involved here. So thank you for that.

As a gay man, all you want to be able to do is marry your bf, live a hapy life, and die by his side.

Well, for a LOT of the movment, that particular desire is extremely low priority because we'd rather have a home to be married in and a job to be able to pay for that home, and *then* we want to be married.

RIght now, even if marriage were spread across the US, we would still be needing those things.

That's the division. You want what you want, I want what I want, and the *problem* is that we don't agree on the priorities, not that we don't agree on the end result.

Something you missed in your rush to grow up.

No.

That fact that *you* see some sort of insinuation is rather pointedly false, Susan.

And ignorant of history.

Those "legal" marriages you spoke of? They are of questionable legality in other states.

And you intentionally forget the transsexual men and women who *are* homosexual, and that they outnumber you and I.

For now, head over to the recent thread about the CD and bitch about him now.

I'll stay busy reminding people that transsexuals are part of the whole thing.

Sounds reasonable, Susan.

But hey, I'm not a reasonable person, right? (that button thing)

Anyway, on to your questions and assertions:

I *could* use the description of your difficulties as apersonal attack on you. I'm not above such, either, as ya well know, and claim some vaugue sense of moral superiority, but that's not me and ya likely figured at least that much out.

I can, indeed, call you ignorant of history. Becuase you were separate from much of it, and you come from a background that has more privilege than you are either willing or able to realize, and it bleeds out of you. Not male privilege -- you aren't a male, you are a woman, so I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about ethnic and socioeconomic privilege. Of the same sort I have regarding my having served instead of avoiding doing so (neat little dig there, huh? Too bad it hits me as well as you.)

And I can be certain you ae not as cognizant of history as I am in theis field -- if you were, you would know the fallacy of your own words and not have uttered them. You would realize that Butler was basing her ideas off of someting already established by then -- and then challenged for decades afterwards.

But that' talking around it: you are, indeed, ignorant of history.

IF you'd like to know a bit more, please, ask -- this thread is dead, so use my personal email: tonidorsay@msn.com

Second, you were quite clear in your bold face type, and I will be quite clear in my not so bold face type: You may not be legally married to a man in parts of Texas or Oklahoma. My present marriage is not voided by the state law or constitutional amendment in Arizona that says it is supposed to be. I cannot marry anyone right now, despite the law saying that I am not married. That no one calls us on them is irrelevant to what you said. You said they were legal. sad news, they aren't. That is a causalty of the fight for gay marriage, and in doing so, we have no choice but to take it up for ourselves because of the way those losses were obtained. And don't even try it in Florida -- the Kanataras case totally screwed things up there such that it may not even be possible to get married again. I'm not going to tell you they ae facts -- I could be wrong: it might be Kansas instead of Oklahoma. Been a while since I checked. And the Kantaras case precedent has yet to be challenged.

But you can, indeed, verify them all for yourself.

Thirdly, you haven't found such becuase I didn't mention anything about "post operative". Someone's operative status doesn't change a damn thing -- cancer surgery does not make someone a different thing, nor does heart surgey. I suppose the face transplant is now different as a result as well?

But the data is indeed out there. WHy, you could pull up the data from the All Gender Health seminars (oh, dear, they are rather scattered among ethnic backgrounds, so that will affect things), where 1440 people were surveyed by a team led by Dr. William O Bockting. You know him, right?

WPATH. President Elect thereof?

With Eli Coleman they collected a massive amount of data available right now through the AGH, or through "A Comparison of HIV Prevalence and Risks" if its reached press yet and later works.. You might want to check it out. Among it is such wonderful stuff like:

among mtf, 50% attracted to women, 24% attracted to men, 27% attracted to both, with 29% also attracted to other transfolk. And for FTM's it was 685 attracted to women, 15% attrcted to men, 18% to both, with 29% of the whole also attracted to transfolk.

And to "leave transsexuals" out is indeed, to intentionally forget those who are such.

Because, I'm sad to say, all too many of the cis-GLB already do that. Not many gay men want to date a gay man who happens to be a transsexual. Not a woman, mind you, a man.

Hope this helps :D