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!

Hate is not a family value

Yesterday dealt a serious blow to the community, but as somebody at the D.C. rally said, this is just a minor setback. We are, by no means, backing down from this fight.

I won't reiterate what every other blogger is saying. But wow, the rally in Dupont Circle yesterday was absolutely amazing. It was breathtaking to see the circle fill up with people, all coming together to fight for what we all know is right. It was phenomenal.

I was waiting with baited breath to hear the decision of the court yesterday. Tyson, president of our campus Gay/Straight Alliance and my token gay male buddy, sent me a link to watch the footage live on CNN.com. I was in the library at the time and, thus, had really shitty internet, so I raced back to my room, only to fiddle with my Flash player and plugins until 12:59PM, when I finally got the video to work. 'This is it,' I thought as I gripped the sides of my wooden dormroom chair. 'It's been a great morning and this is going to make it even better.'

I watched in silence for a minute or so, not being able to get the sound to work. The swarm of people standing outside the courthouse was astonishing to me, though I had no idea what I had or hadn't missed. Then, I saw people beginning to file away. "What happened?" I literally shouted at my computer screen. "Where are you going?"

The sound kicked in, and I heard a reporter: "Ma'am, why are you so upset?" he was asking somebody off-camera. The mysteriously downtrodden woman went on to explain that she was still considered married, but nobody else was allowed to get married now, and she didn't think that was fair.

I was livid. I had been so anxious, so excited, so... hopeful. All for nothing. Upstairs, Tyson was screaming in his room. My first response? A bitter Facebook status. This turned out to be the right way to go, because within minutes I had at least 15 responses, one of which told me that there was going to be a protest in D.C. that night. Without question, I raced up to Tyson's room and knocked on the door, right below the Post-It note that read, in ink that was probably still wet, "I hate you, California!" Tyson opened the door. "Dupont tonight?" he asked. "Dupont tonight," I replied.

We headed for the Metro station at 5 and made it into D.C. by 7:30. We visited Lambda Rising (which turned out to be more porn and less pride, much to my dismay) and the HRC store (which I have my own moral reservations about, but anyway...). When we passed the circle after emerging from the Metro, there were a few people scattered around the fountain. We couldn't tell who was there for the rally, except for the ones with signs and posters.

When we went back at 8:15, it had filled up like the ladies' room at intermission (oh theatre jokes). Tyson and I immediately pulled out our rainbow flags and held them up, which garnered much attention. We were interviewed for a blog (which can be found here!) and had our picture taken for various websites/publications (coming home that night, we received many text messages saying something akin to: "I JUST SAW YOU ON TV!").

The speakers at the protest were absolutely phenomenal (this is a great video of the highlights from each speaker). I was hoarse from screaming by the end of the night.

I feel so privileged to be able to take part in something this monumental. For those of you that can, get out to a protest and show your support for equal rights for all. For those who can't get out to a rally, write to your senators, congresspeople, and the president and tell them that separate is not and never will be equal!

A week or so ago, St. Mary's College of Maryland hosted an annual event called "Take Back the Night." Students of all genders were encouraged to gather together to raise awareness of sexual assault and domestic abuse. The name of the event is indicative of its intent: for females to reclaim the night as theirs, instead of a time when they are supposed to fear for their safety and stay indoors.

I sat in the rec room of the Lewis Quad suites and had my mind blown by incredible speakers, dancers, and poets. What struck me most was the invitation for victims to stand up and tell their stories. I was floored and entranced by the five women, students at my college, students who I have taken classes with, eaten meals with, waved to on The Path, who got up and bravely told their stories of abuse, heartbreak, and injustice. Sexual assault is something that, unfortunately, never rings loudest until it hits home. Until you can put a familiar face onto it.

Just today, my partner Sarah sent me a NY Times article that her roommate sent to her. Just from reading the headline, "Is Rape Serious?" I knew I was going to read something that would boil my blood.

I was not wrong. I have never been more angry, appalled, and disappointed with my country than I was after reading this article (and this is including the Swine Flu pandemic which just makes me want to take a baseball bat to my own face).

Did you know that it takes up to one full year to process the evidence presented when a rape is reported?

Did you know that this is only when the "rape kit" (the evidence gathered from the victim's body) is actually used as evidence.

"... in Los Angeles County, there were at last count 12,669 rape kits sitting in police storage facilities. More than 450 of these kits had sat around for more than 10 years, and in many cases, the statute of limitations had expired."

This is unacceptable. How in the hell does our criminal justice system find it appropriate that DNA evidence--evidence that can definitively prove the identity of a rapist--presented in a rape case is not considered to be a top priority? How and when did rape become the least of our worries, and who decided this because I've got one hell of a bone to pick with them.

"Solomon Moore, a colleague of [the author] at The Times, last year wrote about a 43-year-old legal secretary who was raped repeatedly in her home in Los Angeles as her son slept in another room. The attacker forced the woman to clean herself in an attempt to destroy the evidence.

Tim Marcia, the detective on the case, thought this meant that the perpetrator was a habitual offender who would strike again. Mr. Marcia rushed the rape kit to the crime lab but was told to expect a delay of more than one year.

So Mr. Marcia personally drove the kit 350 miles to deliver it to the state lab in Sacramento. Even there, the backlog resulted in a four-month delay — but then it produced a “cold hit,” a match in a database of the DNA of previous offenders.

Yet in the months while the rape kit sat on a shelf, the suspect had allegedly struck twice more. Police said he broke into the homes of a pregnant woman and a 17-year-old girl, sexually assaulting each of them."

This is not okay.

What disturbs me the most about this is that this article was published yesterday. Yesterday. Maybe I'm not as informed as I think I am, but why has it taken until April 2009 for somebody to stand up and say, "Something's fishy here." Why have bigger precautions not been taken? Hell, where is the federal mandate that requires rape kits to be tested within a week of being obtained? Where the fuck are our priorities?

Speak up. Speak out. Forward this article to all your friends, get in contact with your government, and let them know that this is not okay.

Self-Identification Form

So, like the good broke college student that I am, I've spent this, the Friday night of my spring break, filling out job applications for the summer.

Whilst pursuing these endeavors, I made a crack to my best friend about applying to Hallmark, which prides itself on being a fine upstanding Christian establishment, and how hiring me, a queer transgendered anarchist lesbian, would probably go against all of its principles.

Enclosed within the application were three additional papers: one about submitting to a background check, another about living in California (which is irrelevant to me) and another that is called a Self-Indentification Form.

The Self-Identification Form is what I'm here to talk about. The form begins with a disclaimer about the company's non-discrimination clause, which thankfully includes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." So far, I'm impressed.

Then, the paragraph after that explains that the company allows its employees to self-identify their gender and ethnicity, instead of having to rely on what is stated on birth certificates and driver's licenses. Now, I'm beyond impressed; I'm ecstatic.

After that comes the actual process of self-identifying. The form starts with gender, and is formatted like so:

What is your gender? (Please check only one box)
_ Female _ Male

Um... I'm confused.

...

No, really, that's my answer. I'm confused. What the hell do I check when what gender I am is just as mercurial as what pair of underwear I'm going to put on in the morning? This is almost harder than having to deal with whatever label they slap on you as soon as they pull you out and slap you on the ass. If I check one, I'm lying. If I check the other, I'm still lying. And, not for nothing, when you're an in-the-closet transgender whose mother insists on looking over every job application before submittal, checking "Male" when you've got a vagina raises more than just a couple eyebrows.

I wish I didn't have to complain because this really is an innovative step forward in the process of gender eradication. But it just hasn't gone far enough. What would really have been effective would have been if, after "What is your gender?" the form offered a line upon which one could write their preferred gender. Or, instead of "What is your gender?" they asked "What pronouns do you prefer?" and then either offered options or left a "fill in the blank" space.

In fact, let's expand the whole self-identification form itself:

What is your gender? (Optional) ____________________
What pronouns do you prefer? _____________________
What is your preferred name? _____________________

I know, I know, that's cumbersome. But gender -is- cumbersome, which is why it shouldn't exist at all! In fact, let's remake the Self-Identification Form once more, and erase the "What is your gender?" question altogether. And then let's work on erasing it from EVERY form, and every application, and every conversation we have.

Until then, I'm gonna go sit over here, stare at this paper, and figure out how to check off the space in between the two boxes.

Man, I'm looking majorly frump today. I'm putting the blame on my (unfortunately) healthy reproductive system. Okay, I guess I shouldn't say that, because there are plenty of people with unhealthy reproductive systems that would cook babies for my intact innards (though I feel like that hyperbole is somewhat counterproductive).

But really, this is such a pain, literally and figuratively. And I mean, can't I get a break? I'm not planning on using any of this junk, can't it just take a breather until the time possibly comes? Wouldn't that be just spectacular? Being able to induce menstruation at will, by way of some magical technology ("magical technology" is redundant in my opinion but I'll let it slide). I don't mind all of this stuff being in there, but I could do without the crippling pain, epidermal oil spill, energy drink-resistant fatigue and remnants of a re-enactment of the crucifixion in my pants every 28 days, thanks.

I've always threatened that I'd get a hysterectomy as soon as I could pay for it on my own. This, of course, horrified my mother. I was only half-joking at the time. Upon recent assessment of my monetary stability, I've decided that this is not going to happen for a while, and by that time, my body will have dried itself up on its own. But really, I don't hear many success stories about menopause either...

Every day this surgery thing sounds more and more appealing.

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.