Just a reminder that "all Americans" can't serve their country

I'd written about this before. It's a huge deal that the military's gay ban has been lifted. But folks should refrain from saying that now "all Americans" can serve openly. Trans Americans cannot.

I think it's going to be a heavy lift, lifting the ban on trans service members any time soon. Remember, gay service members were coming out for decades, in an effort to change public attitudes. You don't hear that often about trans members coming out. We're going to need more of that. Then again, society's views on all these issues are changing quickly, so that will help.

And the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell can only help the cause of trans service members, as we're already seeing that the critics of DADT repeal, with all of their dire predictions, were wrong. Read the rest of this post...

DC government to run pro-trans ads at bus stops

Very interesting. Low visibility has always been a problem for the trans community. People got accustomed to, and even started liking and supporting, gays because they got to know us, and see us. This kind of publicity is huge, and hugely important.

Read the rest of this post...

Trans man wins UK Big Brother competition

I don't claim to understand how the UK TV show works, but I do know the show is a big deal. This is a big opportunity for trans visibility, which is what trans people need much more of. It is interesting that two of the biggest pro-trans visibility moments in the past year have both been on these sort of reality-ish "vote you off the island" shows (first Chaz Bono, and now this). Read the rest of this post...

It's a little weird that the Pentagon is celebrating "transgender" Pride considering it bans them

Andy Towle has a very cool LGBT Pride poster that's going up at the Pentagon.  The only problem is that the poster reads "Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Month Event."  And the Pentagon bans transgender people from military service.  So you might want to think twice about attending if you're trans, unless you're looking to get on Nightline (which might not be such a bad thing, politically, in terms of moving things forward). Read the rest of this post...

Pee etiquette

It's an interesting question as to whether we just assume each other's gender identity.

I assume we do.  The same way we tend to assume each other's sexual orientation - though more and more people, if they get a whiff of someone being gay or lesbian, tend to be more careful about how they phrase certain questions.

But is it entirely proper etiquette - yet - to not assume someone's gender identity, or rather, to ask them what it is (suggesting that it wasn't clear)?

In the link above, there's a suggestion that ask someone what pronoun they prefer to be called by (e.g., him or her).  The thing is, if you ask someone who isn't transgender if they prefer to be called him or her, do you risk offending them?

Some will say that this would be akin to being offended because someone thinks you're gay - i.e., they shouldn't be offended, as it's not offensive.  But that's easier in principle than in practice.  I can imagine a woman (or a guy) being offended (or at least hurt) that I wasn't sure if she looked like a man or a woman.  And I can certainly imagine a straight guy being put off by my guessing, incorrectly, his sexual orientation, or even assuming his orientation is unclear.  Though you could certainly argue that that's his problem, not mine.

Maybe it's simply new, and it's something people need to become accustomed to.  Just as they're more accustomed now than they were before to people possibly being gay and not always being assumed straight. Read the rest of this post...

Transgender advocate talks about trans in the military to CNN

Read the rest of this post...

Cross-dressing male student permitted to wear dress at graduation

It's an interesting question as to whether it matters that he's a gay male cross-dresser rather than someone who feels that he was born into the wrong gender (I'm unclear on the terminology). Would he have a stronger argument if he were the latter rather than the former. Some would argue that both involve expressing your true self. Fair enough. But then does that negate all school dress codes? It's an interesting article, and interesting compromise by the school. Read the rest of this post...

Argentina now leads the world in trans rights

Tango via Shutterstock

Que bárbaro.

Activists say Argentina now leads the world in transgender rights after giving people the freedom to change their legal and physical gender identity simply because they want to, without having to undergo judicial, psychiatric and medical procedures beforehand.

Read the rest of this post...

Top Romney aide gleefully outed transgender woman, ending her political career

Romney adviser
Eric Fehrnstrom

Eric Fehrnstrom is called Mitt Romney's "most trusted" adviser. Well it seems that Mr. Romney's most trusted adviser is alleged to have "glee"-fully outed a transgender women, ending her career in politics.  This from GQ:

Fehrnstrom saved his cheap shots for smaller-time Massachusetts pols. When a political activist and gadfly named Althea Garrison was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, the fact that she was transgender was an open secret in Boston political circles. But Fehrnstrom was the first one to put that information into print—"I can remember his glee when he found the birth certificate," says former Herald reporter Robert Connolly—thus bringing a swift end to Garrison's future on Beacon Hill.

Glee.

This is particularly troubling news, coming on the heels of the revelation earlier this week that Mitt Romney physically bullied a gay student while in prep school.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another.

And don't forget that Mitt Romney bullied an anti-bullying commission while he was governor of Massachusetts.

Angered that his name appeared on a press release touting a gay pride parade, Governor Mitt Romney moved yesterday to curtail the activities of a 14-year-old advisory commission on gay and lesbian youth.

The commission chairwoman, Kathleen M. Henry, said she was called yesterday by Beth Myers, the governor's chief of staff, who told her that the governor planned to issue an executive order ''revoking our existence" and creating another youth commission whose purview would be all of the state's youth, not just gays and lesbians. The commission would have all new members, she said.

Romney eventually shut the anti-bullying commission down entirely.

It's interesting that a gay Romney spokesman is forced to resign simply because of who he is, while the anti-LGBT spokesman gets off scot-free. Read the rest of this post...

Is this the same thing as a trans-exclusive ENDA?

A friend emailed this morning and asked why this post isn't the same thing as a trans-exclusive ENDA.  It's a point that I hadn't considered, I was happy to tout the trans victory.  But his point was why it's okay for trans rights to advance independently of gay rights, but not vice versa? Read the rest of this post...

Big transgender ruling from EEOC

From Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly:

An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to an opinion issued on April 20 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The opinion, experts say, could dramatically alter the legal landscape for transgender workers across the nation.

The opinion came in a decision delivered on Monday, April 23, to lawyers for Mia Macy, a transgender woman who claims she was denied employment with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the agency learned of her transition. It also comes on the heels of a growing number of federal appellate and trial courts deciding that gender-identity discrimination constitutes sex discrimination, whether based on Title VII or the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

The EEOC decision, issued without objection by the five-member, bipartisan commission, will apply to all EEOC enforcement and litigation activities at the commission and in its 53 field offices throughout the country. It also will be binding on all federal agencies and departments.

Read the rest of this post...

Gloria Allred unhappy with Donald Trump following overturn of trans ban at Miss Universe

As you know, Donald Trump recently dropped the ban on trans women participating in the Miss Universe pageant. Apparently he's been a bit of a jerk since then, and Gloria Allred, who is representing the trans woman who wanted to be in the pageant, is not pleased. Here is Gloria's letter to the Donald:

Mr. Trump has attempted to create a smokescreen by engaging in personal attacks as a diversionary tactic to shield his organization from further criticism because they have still not committed themselves in writing to eliminate the "naturally born" female rule worldwide.

However, the Miss Universe rule which required contestants to be a "naturally born" female is an important civil rights and human rights issue. Mr. Trump conceded last week that this rule violated the laws of the United States and Canada and therefore allowed Jenna Talackova to re-enter the Miss Universe Canada pageant after first having disqualified her based on the rule. Jenna won this victory because she had the courage to stand up against it. We have continued to advocate that the Miss Universe pageant should eliminate this rule for the entire Miss Universe organization around the world, but the Miss Universe organization has not yet agreed to do so.

I have been in communication with representatives of the Miss Universe organization and they know my strong belief that this rule needs to be eliminated. Mr. Trump, I suggest that you focus on the issue - will you eliminate the discriminatory rule and do so in a way that makes it crystal clear that every woman is eligible to compete in all countries around the world where the Miss Universe pageant exists?

Last week, in response to your offer to show me your penis, I said in jest, that I would not be able to view something so small without a magnifying glass. I apologize if that offended you. I'll make you a deal. If you change your discriminatory rule I promise to tell everyone that your penis is enormous, and that the only thing bigger is your ego.

Gloria Allred
Attorney at Law
representing Jenna Talackova
April 10, 2012

Read the rest of this post...

Transgender beauty queen gets okay for Miss Universe pageant

She's a knock out. Interesting that Bill O'Reilly weighed in on her behalf. He's funny. He was surprisingly good on a number of gay issues in the early 2000s, including marriage and our (successful) campaign against Dr. Laura - he was also quite nasty to the ex-gays - then the religious right went nuts on him and he backtracked. I'm surprised they'd let him get away with this one. Goes to show you, everyone (nearly everyone) is wooable.

From Dot429.com:

Beauty queen and Vancouver resident, Jenna Talackova, was ousted from the Miss Universe Canada competition after she admitted to being born a boy. However, due to pressures from a change.org petition, the media, and GLAAD - Miss Universe Canada has agreed to let Talackova compete in May.

Conservative commentator, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, also spoke out in support of Talackova. “What right does Miss Universe pageant have to violate this lady’s right to be a woman…they’re basically saying that because you weren’t born a woman, you don’t have the right to be a woman…on her passport it says she’s a woman…it doesn’t sound right to me.”

Executive vice president of the competition and special counsel to Donald Trump, Michael D. Cohen, said in an e-mailed statement Monday evening that the organization, "will allow Jenna Talackova to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant provided she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions.”

Read the rest of this post...

AP exposé on the plight of homeless gay, trans youth

An incredibly in-depth piece on gay/trans homeless youth from AP's Verena Dobnik:

Gizmo Lopez, 19, comes from a staunchly Catholic family with Puerto Rican roots. She now sleeps on the subway.

"I'm bisexual, and my stepfather didn't approve; he said it's wrong," said the teenager, whose mother died two years ago.

Her father moved to Puerto Rico with her two half-brothers, leaving her behind — alone in the family's apartment on Manhattan's Lower East Side. One day afternoon, when she came home from school, "I found a pink slip on the door."

She was evicted.

Catholic family values. Then again, dad was only following the lead of the Catholic bishops, who routinely hate on gays.

The support saved Demetrius Smith, an 18-year-old who left his great-grandmother's Michigan farm years ago because "she whipped me, and she beat me with an umbrella because she thought I acted like a girl."

He bought food and other necessities by working as an escort.

Just wow. Read the rest of this post...

Trans in the military, has their time come?

A big story in MetroWeekly about trans in the military, and how the DADT repeal group OutServe has given the trans issue the cover story on its most recent magazine.

I remember working on the DADT battle we fought in 1993, during the first six months of the then-new Clinton presidency.  Every single day there was a slew of DADT stories in the daily paper (this was before the World Wide Web) nearly every single day for a period of six months.  I remember at the time thinking how significant of a cultural shift this was.  Families across America were going to be forced to address, to think about, to talk about, gay issues at the breakfast table as mom and dad read the morning paper.  The gay visibility was unprecedented.  (And one could argue that unlike articles about the AIDS epidemic, these stories were a more positive spin.)

I don't think the trans community has had that watershed visibility moment yet.

It's been said that the trans community, politically, is twenty years behind the gay community, at least at the federal level.  In a number of cities and states, trans civil rights ordinances, or LGBT civil rights ordinances, have passed, when they haven't passed at the federal level.

Twenty-one states plus Washington, D.C. outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and fifteen states plus Washington, D.C. outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

At the federal level, while we've slowly made progress on gay civil rights, trans civil rights' successes have been fewer, and smaller - meaning, while Clinton appointee Roberta Achtenberg was the first openly gay assistant secretary, one of the first (the first?) ever openly trans appointees - but not an assistant secretary - was appointed by President Obama in early 2010, a good 15 years or so later, and again, not at the same level as Achtenberg.

And culturally, we had the 1993 March on Washington that certainly brought hundreds of thousands of gays and their supporters to Washington, DC.  No equivalent trans march has been so visible (for a variety of reasons, including the simple fact that their total numbers are fewer).

So it's an uphill slog for the trans community.  Visibility is a big part of the fight.  And that visibility needs to happen early and often.  We didn't really start fighting DADT - with organizations devoted exclusively to repealing the ban - until 1993.  And it still took us nearly 20 years to beat it.

The trans community is also disadvantaged by its lack of a national organization akin to an HRC.  Back in '93, HRC was already a big and decently powerful place. No similar trans rights organization exists today. And while HRC, NGLTF and GLAAD all embrace trans rights as part of their agenda, it's only part of their agenda.  And while some might perceive NGLTF and GLAAD as more pro-trans than HRC, NGLTF has been missing in action for years on federal issues (remember, NGLTF took over the lead on ENDA four years ago - how's that been going?), and GLAAD's mission is narrower than other groups, only focusing on the media (important, but not enough).  The trans community needs its own civil rights powerhouse, and I think it needs to be independent of other allied communities.

What the trans community really needs is a big rich trans donor to set up a real - meaning, big money and big staffing - trans rights organization in Washington, DC.  Chaz, are you there? Read the rest of this post...

Trans activists glitterbomb Dan Savage again, this time because he supports marriage equality

Trans activists are now publicly demanding that gays not be permitted to wed until trans people get more of their civil rights. From Xtra:

In an interview with Xtra after the confrontation, activist Fister Limp Wrist accused Savage of "ableist, racist, transphobic, fat-phobic, sero-phobic and rape-apologist attitudes and views." Activists handed audience members bright pink pamphlets outlining their accusations as they entered the theatre.

"Savage is taking on being a speaker and leader in this movement. We have to take that into account," she adds. "He's part of a broader [group] of gay, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied gay men focused on gay-marriage priorities. We want to say those priorities are messed up."

So who's next for trans activists, Evan Wolfson and the crew at Freedom to Marry, Ted Olson and David Boies who are leading the legal fight against Prop 8?  And if Dan Savage is now the enemy for simply supporting marriage equality, then who isn't?

If there are other voices in the trans political community besides these, perhaps it's time to hear from them.

Now you'll understand why the Center for American Progress' recent panel discussion trying to diminish marriage equality caught my eye. Read the rest of this post...

A thinly veiled attack on marriage equality

I always worry when someone starts a talk by explaining how much they "really really care about marriage equality" but...

The Center for American Progress held a panel discussion yesterday titled "Why Black Gay and Transgender Americans Need More than Marriage Equality." My ears immediately perked on hearing the title, since it sounded as if it were echoing the argument making the rounds of late that the battle for marriage equality is somehow anti-trans because it doesn't help the trans community, even though it does - those trans people who are straight can already get married, those trans people who are gay cannot. The larger point being made is that it's wrong for our community to push for marriage.

With that in mind, I started listening to CAP's panel, which is still on the Web, and within the first minute and a half the moderator said the following:

Marriage alone is not the silver bullet to deal with all the disparities black LGBT people face. So it's important for us to think outside the box, and to work on more, and to multi-task in order to address the quality of life issues that the population faces. In fact, when you think about marriage equality, it didn't save poor Carl Walker up in Connecticut who was a ten year old African-American boy who took his own life under the stress of being bullied because people thought he was gay. And marriage equality in the District of Columbia is not going to slash the high rates of HIV and AIDS that the black LGBT population here faces. So we must think bigger, and we must think of other policy priorities.

Huh?

Gay marriage didn't save a ten year old boy who killed himself after being bullied.  Was it supposed to? The Dream Act wouldn't have saved him from being bullied either.  Nor did the stimulus.  Nor did the 2008 election of Barack Obama, apparently.  So should we back away from our support of those issues as well? This feels like misdirection, and I'm trying to understand what's really going on here.

Then there's her second argument, that gay marriage won't decrease the HIV/AIDS rate.  I suspect that too was intended to be a red herring, as gay marriage wasn't specifically intended to cure HIV. Having said that, can we really say that marriage equality won't help at all?   Why do you think some gay men are promiscuous and have unsafe sex?  A) We're men.  And, B) we've been told from the beginning of time that we will never, ever ever find love, and any love we find will be an abomination to our families and to our God.  Do you think that just might affect our ability to find love and settle into monogamous relationships, and more generally, our self-worth?  And do you think that a lesser ability to settle down, and low self-esteem, just might make us somewhat more willing to find love wherever we can get it, and in whatever form we can get it?

The next speaker talked about how marriage equality should not be "the" goal of the community (who said it was?), because "LGBT people of color" need education, health care, economic security, housing and feeling safe.  And white gay and trans people aren't in sorry need of health care, economic security, housing and feeling safe (and I suspect for those with less money, education too)?  Again, this feels like a straw man.  It doesn't sound like a gay rights (or trans rights) argument, it sounds like someone working with another non-gay organization or interest (say, a housing group, or welfare group) trying to get our community to work on their issues, rather than our issues.  Unless the argument is, perhaps, that we should have found a gay/trans angle to the stimulus bill, to the health care bill, and to mortgage reform - to get special amendments that would have particularly helped our community in those bills - then I'm all with them.  Our groups should have carved something out from each bill for our community and they didn't. But I'm still not convinced that I want HRC's top priority to be the stimulus bill or health care reform, when we already have "straight" groups working on those not-gay issues.

But are we really suggesting that millions of gay couples getting the opportunity to receive over 1100 federal benefits, not to mention the imprimatur of the state condoning our relationships, wouldn't be a hugely important deal affecting our community on nearly every challenge we face?

And in any case, since when wasn't the hate crimes bill about trying to make things safer for people?  Dan Savage's anti-bulling "It Gets Better" campaign wasn't about the same?  How exactly is the issue of safety for gay/trans kids, for example, not being addressed as a national priority in our community?  It is.  Perhaps not sufficiently, since we still have a lot more to be done, but it clearly is a priority for the community.  And how wasn't "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - another huge priority the last few years - about economic security for gays and lesbians, black and white, in the military?  The US military is the largest single employer in the United States.  Military service is a huge opportunity for less fortunate kids to get a college education, and a job.  And now it has been opened up to gay and lesbians.  That's great for the economic security of blacks and whites.

Next up, there was a mention of how the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate didn't include a lot of discussion of the particular problems black lesbians face in the military.  And again, I have to ask how that set the fight to repeal DADT back?  The number one goal of the DADT battle was not to educate America about black lesbians.  It was to get the ban lifted, which would ultimately benefit black lesbians, white lesbians, white gay men, black gay men etc.  I'm just not understanding why the DADT battle somehow fell short because America didn't learn more about black lesbians.  That wasn't the point of the campaign.  And we won.  And now everyone, including black lesbians, is better off.

Next up, ENDA.  She argues that in the ENDA discussion, people aren't talking enough about black trans women who face high unemployment.  So making black trans women the face of ENDA is the number one thing we need to do to help the bill's passage in the US Congress?  Again, the question is what the ultimate goal is here, and what strategies further that goal.  Is it to get the bill passed so that black trans women, and all gay and trans people, have job protections, or is it to make black trans women the focal point of the campaign regardless of whether that helps or hurts final passage of the legislation, and regardless of whether that helps or hurts black trans women in the workplace?  I'd have been fine if they never mentioned white gay men being kicked out of the military at all, had it been show that that is what would have been needed to get the bill repealed.  If you're going to argue that the strategy was wrong, then explain how your strategy would have better furthered passage of the repeal - because that was the ultimate goal, not simply giving everyone a fair chance to be heard, regardless of whether it advanced repeal.

Then comes as discussion of data.  She points out that black gay parents tend to be poorer than white gay parents.  And that black lesbians get fewer mammograms than white lesbians.  But is that an issue of sexual orientation or an issue of race?  Do white women, for example, get more mammograms than black women - generally?  (Here's what I found on that: "The higher mortality rates for African-American women may result from barriers to getting mammograms, include fewer board-certified physicians working in lower-income areas, providers who work in the area being less informed about preventive care, women being less likely to adhere to cancer screening recommendations, and time constraints that may limit patient education efforts, the researchers said.") Again, a racial divide, not a sexual orientation divide.

As for poverty, are African-American parents statistically more likely to be less well off than white parents in America, regardless of sexual orientation?    Yes, they are:

"The poverty rate for all persons masks considerable variation between racial/ethnic subgroups. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians."

So again this isn't a question of sexual orientation, it's a question of race in America.  Why wasn't this mentioned in the talk?  Here's more on poverty form the report CAP issued, tied to the panel discussion:

The existing research on black gay and transgender Americans reveals that this community is one of the most economically insecure in our society, despite the stereotype perpetuated by mainstream media images dominated by white, middle-class, gay and transgender people suggesting that gay people are more affluent than the general population.

Though black same-sex couples earn about the same median income (average of $41,500) as their black straight counterparts, they lag behind white same-sex couples ($63,500) in household income.

Households headed by black lesbian couples experience substantial disparities in earnings compared to their black married heterosexual counterparts, making $10,000 less. This gender wealth gap echoes analysis by the Williams Institute that shows black lesbian couples have poverty rates of 21.1 percent compared to just 4.3 percent for white lesbians and 14.4 percent for gay black men.

Further, black lesbians raising children are twice as likely to be living in poverty.

Compelling data, until you actually look at the data and see that the black community in the US has a higher poverty rate than the white community, and that women have a higher poverty rate than men.

So when you have a black woman married to another black woman the poverty impact is doubled because of race and gender, not necessarily because of sexual orientation.  Programs that help women in poverty will help two lesbian women in poverty the same as everyone else. And programs that help black people in poverty will also help two black women in poverty the same as everyone else. Why does this need to be a "gay" problem that gay groups focus on, when we already have poverty groups working on these issues, and it's not entirely clear that the root of the poverty is their sexual orientation?

Take Sicle Cell Anemia.  It's much more common in people of African or Mediterranean descent (that'd be me).  So it's reasonable to assume that black gays and lesbians and Greek gays and lesbians suffer more from Sickle Cell Anemia than do their white gay counterparts.  Does that make Sickle Cell Anemia a gay issue?  She then goes on to talk about how black lesbians have higher rates of cancer, smoking and obesity than white lesbians.  Again, is that because they're gay, or because of their race?

So I looked it up, and in fact, with breast cancer, for example, the problem appears to be one of race:

Life expectancy for women has nearly doubled over the past 100 years, from 48 in 1900 to 79.5 in 2000, yet minority women continue to lag about 5 years behind white women in life expectancy. For example, in the year 2003 white women could expect to live to 80.5 years compared with 76.1 years for black women.

Breast cancer mortality has been declining among U.S. women since 1990, but the decline has been much greater among white women than black women. For example, the 5-year breast cancer survival rate in 2008 was 69 percent for black women, compared with 85 percent for white women.

Although breast cancer death rates are falling, the incidence of new breast cancers continues to rise. Blacks and poor people are much more likely than whites and more affluent people to die from cancer. In addition, high blood pressure, lupus, and HIV/AIDS disproportionately affect women of color.

Female and black stroke patients are less likely than others to receive preventive care for subsequent strokes.

Then there's obesity:

They were shocked to find that obesity related counseling was poor across the board, and even worse for black patients than white ones, regardless of their doctors’ racial identities.

Michelle Obama also recently warned about obesity being a particular problem in the black community. So the issue is not based solely on sexual orientation, if at all.  I'm happy to consider data that suggest sexual orientation plays a role - but that data is not what we're being presented with here.

I'm going to give one more example, and then I'm going to stop, because the panel discussion goes on much longer than just this. She says that "44% of the LGBT homeless population are black LGBT youth." What she doesn't mention is that 42% of the nation's total homeless population is black. So the LGBT numbers parallel that almost exactly. So once again, is sexual orientation causing this problem or is race? And what about homeless youth in particular?  I found this from SAMHSA: "Studies show differing compositions of race/ethnicity among homeless youth. Some show no difference among homeless youth and other youth in their surrounding areas; other found disproportionate representation among racial/ethnic minority youth who become homeless." So maybe yes, may no.

This discussion, from the beginning, felt like a subtle dig at the marriage equality effort, and more generally a dig at the community's other priorities, such as ENDA and DOMA. And watching the presentation, and hearing the speakers again and again fail to tell the audience that the "gay" problems they're pointing to are actually the same problems faced by straight people in the black community as well, makes this entire presentation feel less than compelling. Read the rest of this post...

Ru Paul defends the use of the word "tranny," when the intent is benevolent

Mike Signorile interviews Ru Paul about the word "tranny" and the TV show "Work It" - Ru is fine with both.

Lance Bass just apologized for using the word "tranny." What do you think of all that?

[Laughter] It's ridiculous! It's ridiculous! Words -- it goes back to grade school: Sticks and stones, you know the rest. The thing is you have to look at the ego, you have to follow the money, and the payoff. And the payoff is that the ego wants attention no matter what. It will try to get it wherever the hell it can, whether it's positive or negative. So you have to ignore it basically -- you have to starve it out. And unfortunately in our culture one person can write a letter to the network and they shut something down. It's unfortunate. But I love the word "tranny."

And no one has ever said the word "tranny" in a derogatory sense. In fact, you have to go to the intent of the person saying it. Of course Lance Bass, his intent would never be to be derogatory. Never. So, you know, that's really ridiculous. And I hate the fact that he's apologized. I wish he would have said, "F-you, you tranny jerk!"

It's something that a lot of activists feel though is used against them in a negative way. But, I mean, lesbians, a lot of them call themselves dyke too, right? So, you can call yourself these words.

Right, because they've earned the right to do it. And in the ACT UP age we called ourselves queers because we earned the right, we took the word back. But in reality, once you go even deeper, you know, you have to come from intent. And black folks call themselves the n-word all the time. It's because the intent is coming from a place of love. If the intent is coming from a place of hatred, that's different. But you can't legislate intent. You can't -- there's no way to do it. So, the truth is, you have to fix that individually on a one by one basis. If somebody calls you a green martian, would you be offended by it? No, you wouldn't be. Why? Because you know you're not a green martian. But if you're offended by someone calling you a "tranny," it was only because you believe you are a "tranny!" [laughter.] So then, the solution is: Change your mind about yourself being a "tranny."

You have to read the rest of the interview, on HuffPo, to find out what Ru said about "Working It" - but basically he thinks people are offended too easily. Read the rest of this post...

Bully

It's an interesting question.  Does a trans person have the unquestioned right to tell a newspaper not to report their former name (aka their birth name) alongside their current name?  Is this a form of outing? Did the subject of the story assume part of the risk by agreeing to be in the story - should you assume anonymity while at the same time appearing in the country's largest gay paper? Does it matter that the trans woman didn't object to her name being published until two years after the story was published? And does it matter that her former name is apparently readily available to anyone who does a Google search?

Here is part of what the trans woman argues, then I'll get into what the editor of the paper said:

Even if in previous articles I have consented to having my birth name printed (which I have not explicitly done), I still have a right to request that it not be done in 2011. In 2009 I was interviewed for an article with Xtra when they published my birth name. While I did not have a major problem with that 2009 article, I did feel uncomfortable with my birth name being used. But I was promoting a new film project and the writer was a friend of a friend and I didn’t want to be contentious. The issue is not that people know my birth name; they can find this by looking at my past film work that features my old name. But I don’t want to be referred to by my old name at all nor do I want to encourage it. Especially among people I grew up with who may still not understand my transition.

And then the question arises, even if you disagree with her logic, is it her choice to decide what she's comfortable with, regardless?

There's an ongoing controversy in Canada over the editor of the largest gay paper having included a trans woman's former (birth) surname (the facts are a bit confusing) in a story about her two years ago.  She consented to the story, and did not object at the time to the publication of her last name.  She subsequently objected when the editor, Danny Glenwright, posted a link to the story on Faceboook for their mutual childhood friends, in essence "outing" her to them as trans.  The story is far more complicated, and illustrative of the inability of many to discuss trans issues publicly, with those whom they may disagree, without going ballistic.

Here's more background from the editor of Xtra, the gay paper, explaining what happened, and why he did it.  Note the reference to the fact that he was bullied as a gay boy by the same trans woman.

When I first read the name of Andrea Houston’s sex worker source a lump formed in my throat.

As her editor, I had been hounding her to find a sex worker for her story about violence against sex workers — ahead of the Dec 17 International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. I was not prepared to run such a story if it didn’t include the voice of someone who is affected by the issue.

That’s the type of journalism I practise; that’s the type of activist I am.

Nevertheless, I was also more affected than I was prepared to be when I learned Lexi Tronic was that source.

In another place, at another time, Tronic was responsible for some of the worst bullying I ever received as a young, awkward (not yet happily) gay kid in Winnipeg. I recently wrote about my experiences in the pages of Xtra in the wake of Jamie Hubley’s suicide. This week I remembered writing that piece and thinking specifically about Tronic, who was the perpetrator of much of the taunting I recalled in it.

Then note the comments left below the story, particularly the references to the editor having been bullied.  Here are a few illustrative ones:

If this is any indication of how you acted when you were 14, I would have bullied you too. What a fuckin' punk.

And besides, even if she did bully you, it is an embarrassment, that you, as a grown adult, would drag up something from your childhood to justify disrespect to the trans community.

I find it completely intolerable that you would use a publication that you write for as the platform for your private therapy issues at the expense of an entire community.
If in fact Lexi did bully you as you say when you were 14, explain to me the context of bringing it up in connection to you being called out on being transphobic for irresponsibly using her birth name? What does one have to do with the other? That's what I really want to know because call me weird, but if I were left to assumptions, I would assume that you did it on purpose because you have a personal vendetta against her due to your unmanaged childhood experiences.

As a queer, cisgendered femme who has written for Xtra in the past, I am appalled that this transphobic article and non apology were both run. However, I'm unfortunately not surprised. I would like to believe that Xtra can change and shift away from being a paper that pretty much writes about white gay men with money, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yes you got bullied, so did everyone.

This is clearly not an apology. Cisgender privilege includes feeling entitled to call the shots on what defines transphobia and being able to publish it. I am very disappointed.

Here is a rare civil comment that actually makes an excellent point in a non-abusive way:

Outside of the trans issue is the Sex Worker issue. I work in the sex trade. My real real name is never to be revealed even though many people know it. I am often quoted in media and know many of those reporters personally and they don't reveal my legal name on Facebook or other social media. My job is criminalized in many ways and therefore -so am I. Revealing my real name could result in an investigation and charges. Although I appreciate Xtra and the support and enlightenment provided there about prostitution, I don't see how you don't see that this was a serious ethical infraction with potential life altering ramifications for the named person.

Then note what the trans woman herself wrote about the bullying:

I was pretty mortified by Danny’s response. I really thought we had worked it out. I am not trying to get into a pissing contest with Danny about who is the bigger victim in this situation, himself for being bullied in grade 4 by me, and/or 24 years later being accused of transphobia [cissexism, to be more precise --Savannah] by well-networked and vocal supporters of myself on facebook. But I do feel that as a trans woman and a sex worker with a grade 9 education there is a bit of a power imbalance between myself and an editor of the largest gay publication in Canada.

I will also point out that Danny is a cisgender white male who appears able-bodied. I understand by the tone of his response (he opens with the line: “when I heard the name…a lump formed in my throat”) that he feels defensive and wronged and presumably victimized by me, but I don’t really have the institutional power to oppress Danny. I don’t have the power of the law, the school system, the police; I am marginalized, despite having powerful and vocal allies.

Further, I feel that Danny reacted so strongly because I tried to stand up for myself, and people have supported me, and I feel I have been subject to oppression a second time by Xtra with Danny’s response to the boycott supported by myself, my friends and allies.

Imagine the reaction had a gay leader tried to minimize the childhood bullying of a trans person, especially had they been the bully in question.

I don't know the answer here, and I don't know who's right. I do know that when a gay man writes about having being severely bullied as a child, and he clearly is still traumatized by it today, the tenor of the comments following his editorial, and the seeming dismissal of his pain by the person who bullied him in the first place, is troubling (note that she'd never apologized for the bullying until after this incident blew up, and even now her apology comes across as somewhat of a non-apology (he couldn't really have been bullied if he's a gay white man without any disabilities)).  Did he cross a line?  Quite possibly. (Again, I'd like to hear more about what actually happened - the details are still somewhat fuzzy).  Did the responses he received cross a line?  Absolutely.

We need to learn to be able to discuss these issues, ask questions about them, and even sometimes disagree on them, without eating our own. Read the rest of this post...

Trans

From gudbuy t'jane, a trans blogger:

Controversy erupted in Toronto’s queer community recently as Danny Glenwright, a cissexual editor at Xtra, Canada’s largest gay and lesbian newspaper, publicly posted a trans woman‘s birth name on his personal Facebook. After at first agreeing to remove her information, he instead posted a non-apology to Xtra‘s website, sparking further outrage by trans people and their allies. In response, Xtra has promised to engage in efforts to increase trans awareness and inclusivity at the paper, though details of the plan are unclear.

The tragedy here for me isn’t just the incredible disrespect shown to the trans woman by a member of the LGBT media, but that it seems part of a larger pattern of backlash to trans women by cissexual gay men. Whether it is in response to the transphobic actions or words of a Ronald Gold, or Dan Savage, or exploiting our deaths for camp, or even arguing against use of the word ‘cis’, there is a significant minority of cis gay men who make no effort to restrain their vitriol for trans women who demand equality.

This is by no means to suggest all cis gay men are transphobic. Far from it, I myself have many cis gay men who are incredible friends, allies, and community, and many prominent gay men are vocal supporters of trans rights. Still, whenever conflict arises between cis gay men and trans people (trans women specifically), there is inevitably a core of gay voices who respond with anger and hatred. The tactics of belittling, derailing, and dehumanizing occur again and again.

This post is illustrative of a growing problem. It's increasingly difficult to engage in any discussion of trans issues without being accused of being hateful.  (And I'm not talking about the Canadian editor who mentioned the trans woman's birth name on Facebook, I'm talking about the danger in even commenting on the issue.  Though a reader pointed out the rest of the story that the writer above failed to mention.  It's far less cut and dry than presented - the trans woman in question bullied the gay editor as a young boy.  There's even more to the story, but the results are the same - the editor has now been demonized and marked as hater, bullied twice in essence.  Different country, same story.)

To wit: If you have concerns about trans people making up a word for people who aren't trans (calling us "cis-gender," "cis-sexual" or just "cis"), and often using the words in a context that is critical of gay men (thus intimating that perhaps the word is not truly intended to be a neutral descriptor), then you are the hater.  I would argue that both gay and trans people should be permitted to object to appellations that they find offensive.  Is that really such a controversial notion?

Another example of how difficult it is to discuss anything "trans" is the hateful way Dan Savage is treated by many trans people and their allies. The Dan-haters point to a litany of things Dan has written or said over the past two decades, and claim that they're proof of his "transphobia."  In fact, if you actually click through to the original source and read what Dan actually wrote or said, you'll see that there was nothing anti-trans at all in what he did or said in most of the examples.  (And in one example, Dan was actually publicly defending the trans community when a trans activist threw a glass jar at Dan's head for simply mentioning "trans.")  Dan is now "the enemy," and must be destroyed.  Regardless of the fact that he's one of the most effective gay rights activists and advocates, and public spokesmen, we have today (I challenge you to name anyone in our community who is better at advocating for us on TV - and with his new MTV show, Dan's reach, influence and impact will only grow). Dan must be destroyed, no matter how false the attacks, no matter how much it would hurt the gay community (and the trans community, since he's actually been advocating for them too) and our civil rights to lose him.  Why is that okay?  Now imagine a group of gay men systematically trying to destroy one of the trans community's most effective spokespeople.  Imagine the reaction to that.

I almost didn't even write this post out of concern that if I write anything, ask anything, about trans issues that isn't 100% "correct" I'll be excoriated and deemed a hater (I couldn't even come up with a title that I thought was safe).  I've talked to other gay leaders who are now equally reticent about commenting on trans issues - even asking questions to learn more on trans issues - for the same reason.  I'm having a difficult time believing that this is a good thing for anyone. Read the rest of this post...