Trans-Inclusive ENDA: Is it that hard?

One of the big scandals in the surge for equal rights has been the inclusion of the T in GLBT. I hate to call this a "scandal" because that word, to me, exoticizes and otherizes a group of people within a group of exoticized and otherized people. Maybe "debacle" is a better word... debandal? scandacle?

In any case, one of the big "scandacles" in the past years has been the struggle for protection against workplace discrimination. In 2007, an ENDA bill was presented to Congress that included protection for every part of the GLBT spectrum--including transgender people. Then, some advocates for ENDA got nervous that such a momentous bill wouldn't get passed, and immediately had gender identity dropped from the ENDA bill.

This move in itself was enough to set the transgender community ablaze, and I'm no exception. Since when is it okay to sacrifice one portion of a community just so the others will be able to reap the benefits of a victory? How fucked up is it that there is a hierarchy within a minority group? Clearly, the GLB community is getting the upperhand, and always has. GLB identity has managed to rise from the depths of sexual perversion but transgenderism is still just a naughty nighttime fantasy of men in sparkling high heels and the Dykes on Bikes.

Barney Frank, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, and an openly gay man, joined in the celebration of a non-inclusive ENDA in 2007. His response to the outrage was like that of a parent to a spoiled child whining about the expensive toy that ze didn't get for Christmas:

The question facing us – the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice – is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today.

"Stop raining on our parade, Transgender Community, you'll get your turn eventually. Now bask in my glory as I resist employment discrimination, whilst you still have to dress gender appropriate at a job interview for fear of being rejected."

But, in researching all of this, it leads me to wonder... Should "GLBT" drop the "T"?

I've often wondered this before but it has never really occurred to me until now. What are the ties between the GLB and the T community? I used to argue this, saying that, more often than not, a member of the T community was once a member of the GLB community and the decision to transcend traditional gender roles should not inhibit hir from continuing to associate with the community ze was once part of. But, there are plenty of TG/TS/GQ (transgender/transsexual/gender-queer) people who were never and will never be part of the GLB community, whether it's because they retain their heterosexuality in their gender-transgression or because they reject the gender binary altogether. If you denounce the existence of "male" and "female" in the societal sense, you are, in effect, denouncing the existence of "gay" and "straight," as these terms rely solely on conceptions of sex and gender.

Additionally, the logistics of the two groups don't align well at all. The GLB community is focused around a group of people based off of their sexual orientation. The T community has worked for years and years to convince the rest of society that their rallying point has nothing to do with sexual orientation (back to the fetishization of transpeople that I snarkily mentioned earlier). The T community is about self-expression. The T community rallies around the point that everyone involved does not conform to societal expectations placed upon them based on their genitals. Which does, in effect, tie them back to sexuality--GLB people are also not conforming to societal expectations placed upon them based on their genitals. It's that age-old SAT question: If a T is not a GLB, but a GLB is a T, and the government doesn't believe in any of them, then who the hell are we? So, the logical explanation is just for everyone to identify as transgendered. The end.

I'm kidding (sort of). I'm also running around in circles here, I know. But this is why the issue is still debated today. It's so goddamn complicated.

Which is why I love the word "queer." It's so encompassing (for more, there's a post on the word 'queer' a few posts down).

What prompted me to post this was that a trans-inclusive ENDA is slated to be presented to congress sometime in the near future (more, better details here). I'll try to be a little more helpful as updates on this become available. But, until then, keep your eyes and ears peeled, and don't forget to nag the shit out of your political leaders!

PinkPaper.com

Well, lucky you, the first rant of the blog is a double whammy. Two issues crammed together into one epic first post.

First of all, I find it so hard to believe how the most oppressed groups in a society can still be some of the most exclusive. I just created an account on PinkPaper.com, a gay news website for the UK. When registering for my account, I was asked to provide a title: Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Rev, or Prof. At the top of the drop-down box was a blank space; I selected that, then continued on to fill out the rest of the form. When I clicked the "Register" button, the page reloaded. I didn't understand why. My internet wasn't on the fritz, I'd clearly pressed the right button... Then I saw it: A little red asterisk next to my "Title" (or, lack there of).

Yes, a website devoted to spreading the good word about gay issues was requiring me to choose a gendered title in order to register for their site. Which seems, to me, to be counterproductive. So, in my bitter angry wiseass genderqueer rage, I selected "Rev" and hit "Register" again. The page loaded without a hitch.

It just didn't seem right to me that a site priding itself on delivering the news of the GLBT community would reject the membership of somebody who didn't feel comfortable choosing a title that implies not only gender but emphasis on married or unmarried status. My good friend Wikipedia tells me that no country in the UK allowed same-sex marriage, though "civil partnerships" are allowed. So, what's the deal, PinkPaper.com?

Then, after calming down, I began to think more clearly, and I did a little exploring. I was stamping the label of "GLBT" on PinkPaper.com, but upon reading the About Us section of the website, I found that PinkPaper.com does not consider itself a GLBT news source--only the G, L, and B. Naturally, then, I cannot hold them responsible for being sympathetic to the T in the equation.

But scattered throughout this article about PinkPaper.com and its purpose is the word "queer." PinkPaper.com considers itself "one of the oldest queer titles." It publishes articles on "modern queer culture." Apparently, the "funniest gay cartoon strip" is entitled "Up Queer Street" and can be found within the folds of the Pink Paper.

Queer is a subjective term, as is, really, any definition you find for an "alternative lifestyle." Does "gay" mean just men who like men, or can a woman who likes women be "gay?" If so, then is "lesbian" also a legitimately interchangeable word for both homosexual men and women? And what about those tricky transgendered people? So, when PinkPaper.com calls itself a queer publication, are they marketing to just G, L, and B? Or is T automatically included? And if the former is true, is PinkPaper.com truly "queer?"

This is beginning to sound like an SAT question: If a G is not an L, but an L is a G, and a B is neither a G nor an L, then where the hell does T fit in and how do we stop this madness?

To me, "queer" includes anyone who does not believe in societally normative heterosexuality on a two-gender binary. This would include a straight male-identified man who likes to wear evening gowns, as well as a gay male-identified man who won't even set foot in a nail salon let alone even know where the nearest one is. Hell, if a straight woman wants to call herself "queer" because her best friend is gay and she stands right next to him at the Anti-Prop 8 rally, she can go right ahead as far as I'm concerned. We are in no position to be picky.

And nobody who fits under the "definition" of "queer" needs to identify as such. Some people are really uncomfortable with reclaiming words with negative connotations. I used to be one of them, and I wish I could get over my fear of the word "dyke." Male-identified woman who loves female-identified men but hates the word "queer?" That's fine. You're still welcome at my dinner table, and I'll call you whatever you like.

However, I feel like if you're going to call yourself a "queer" publication, don't ignore the part of your community that doesn't fit into your standard. The reason the transgender movement is lumped with the gay movement is because many transgendered people are also gay--or, for most, are considered gay/lesbian/bisexual because of other people's closed-mindedness. We didn't just leech onto your movement for lack of anywhere else to go; many of us were already marching in your parades before, during, and after we discovered we were our own not entirely separate entity. We're here, we're QUEER, get used to it.

In summation, PinkPaper.com, I'm hoping that sometime in the near future, when I inevitably forget my password and have to create a new account in order to access your site, I will be able to choose that blank space as my "Title" and never again come face-to-face with that wretched red asterisk.