Duly noted. Duly Dismissed.When the right wing tells HRC to march they do ten long steps to the right, pause, and ask “is that enough, sir.” ENDA is the case in point. When HRC senses there’s a leftward radicalization underway it’s one timid step left.
My only question is who told them it was ok to go out on a limb and support GLBT equality. Whatever the answer, it’s not important because our first order of business is to create a leftwing LGBT leadership independent of the right wing Democrats and for the interests of working class GLBT folks.

The Inside SkinnyHere’s a bit of context for this new and purposely brief announcement.
A battle has been roiling at HRC. Some believed the only road back was a full on apology for supporting the sexual orientation only ENDA and a commitment to OPPOSE a non-inclusive bill in the future.
Other within HRC still believe they did the right thing and should not back down to “a bunch of simple minded whining” from outside the beltway armchair quarterbacks.
There remains for some a palpable contempt for efforts to supplant HRC as the dominant voice on Capitol hill (read: United ENDA).
This was the language of compromise and possibility. I suggest that the “outstretched hand and watchful eye” approach is just the right balance.
Transgender champions are fighting from within HRC. Give them some support but as the saying goes, fool me once…

fool me once…

It’s insultingWhy would anyone believe anything they say at this point.  

If you believe them…I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

It’s just words…… and words that they’ve gone back on before.  I’ll believe it when I see it.
Keep in mind that an Obama administration and the government houses are prepared to pass a fully-inclusive version, and are practically handing it to them.  All the HRC has to do is not oppose it.  
Wait until FoF, FRC, AFA et al stir up the potty predator panic on a national scale, and then the HRC might actually be called upon to do something courageous.  Or compromise.

My thoughtshttp://endablog.wordpress.com/…
Irrespective of whether there was anything to the statement disappearing from the Scampaign’s website and then re-appearing under a different URL, I stand by the following:
The statement means either:
(1) They’re just lying as usual and 2009 will equal 2007;
(2) They’ve been given a heads-up that the economy is so fucked that no ENDA of any sort is going to go anywhere, giving the Scampaign the cover to act like they give a shit about us because it won’t really matter; or
(3) They’ve been given a heads-up that the economy isn’t going to stop ENDA but that the deal has already been made – and the votes secured – to flush us and pass a 2009 version of 2007 ENDA 3685, giving the Scampaign the cover to act like they give a shit about us because it won’t really matter.

HRC…..THE HUB OF THE “A CROWD BEGGING SET…”
I marched in the Village in the 1960′s. I marched with Harvey in the Castro in the 1970′s. I marched with Larry Kramer, my fellow alum, in the 1980′s.
 I also hold undergraduate and graduate degrees, so the gentrified “legal eagles” can hold their venom and stereotypes, and my radicalism has PROVEN to me, in both my schismatic denomination, and in LGBT rights, the Right Wing Religionists have NO RESPECT OR FEAR of those who beg and cajole rather than demand their civil rights.
 I was in Washington DC many times during Cheryl Jacques’ tenure. This is the last radical lesbian that ever walked through those doors as president. She knew and understood that it was civil marriage, by name and by statute, that was the answer. She was a MA state senator, and prosecuting attorney in our state. Yes, she is a Cliffie and HLS grad.
 If you saw MILK, you noticed that in the sixties, the rich A Queens supported “sympathetic straights” rather than gays. They wanted acceptance so badly, that they engaged in stepinfetchit politics. Today, at HRC, they may wear designer suits, and wear their hair “high and tight”, but it is the same old triangulating queens. Forty one years OUT of the closet, has taught me alot.
 Forget we Boomers and our Gen X kids. Many of them saw us scared in our pre-Stonewall closets, and sent out the wrong message to our kids, and the GenX generation. It is to the youth among you that I speak to.
  If you are in school, stay there and get the advanced credentials to fight these reactionary sob’s who deny us our rights.
   If not, take it from this old bishop activist whose next major birthday is 70 years old…..if you do not, then Canada and 7 other countries – none predictable except for Holland – will add to their numbers of equal marriage and other rights, while the USA will remain a theocratic bastion.

As a Lesbian activist, I remain uneasyAs good as this news is, Joe has abandoned this policy before. As has been pointed out by others, “only support” is far different from “only accept.”
Far too many of my Lesbian sisters need the inclusive form of this bill to be able to live truly equal lives in the United States. Perhaps I am nitpicking, but I feel a responsibility to ALL of my sisters, a committment that Mr. Solmonese has not shown and that this statement does not guarantee.
And as far as the ‘outside of the beltway” condescension shown by some HRC staffers, well, most of us do live outside of the Beltway. The “inside the Beltway” sense of power and superiority is an illusion and an intoxicant simultaneously.

I was just headed for the restroomNow, I have just the thing to wipe with!

Was it a mistaketo pass the Civil Rights Act in 1964 even though it didn’t include support for gay people?
If not, why is it a mistake today to pass an ENDA that does not include support for trans people?
Obviously inclusive is better than exclusive if you can get it passed, but I don’t like to see the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We won’t accept excuses this time.If they water it down again, they WILL face the wrath of all four letters.

Nobody comes back…Nobody comes back for anyone, that’s the problem. Including us costs little, it probably won’t affect passage. Yes, the fundies will rail about men in the ladies rooms. But they would rail about gay men going after kids if transpeople weren’t there. And they’d go after lesbians if it were a lesbian only bill.
Include us and at most, the fight becomes a little bit harder or might be delayed a year. Exclude us and transpeople will never see employment rights within our lifetimes and we are the ones most in need of protection.

It’s not all all about who you sleep withAn ENDA without protections for gender identity is pretty worthless. Many gay people are fired (or not hired) because they do not conform to gender stereotypes, not because of who they’re sleeping with. And….it can always be used as a convenient excuse by companies who do fire you for who you’re sleeping with.
I think the worst thing HRC did was create massive conflict within our ranks. Your letter was not nasty, just a difference of opinion. But I cannot express how painful it was to read the vicious comments by gays and lesbians against t-people after HRC’s idiotic move last year. It was very depressing. I dropped my membership and will never support them again without a sincere, personal apology. I sent them my money. They can afford to write a PERSONAL letter of apology. All I get are renewal forms….again and again and again.

WowI can feel the love for HRC on this blog
It is interesting, especially since I’ve heard that HRC had a hand in the recent battle in Gainesville to extend the non-discrimination ordinance to include gender identity. Or at least that is what I’ve heard from people within the campaign. (And not a small role either, but not in control, a support role).

They did. And, it was wonderful that they did.But, the HRC doesn’t get full credit for their good work regarding gender identity and expression related work because of very well documented bad behavior by the HRC towards trans individuals over the years.
And at Gainesville, one could make the cynical argument that the HRC only got involved because the proposition as written not only would have repealed civil rights for trans people, but it would have removed civil rights for lesbian and gay people as well.
This all said, trans people can’t look at one recent good act in Gainesville without remembering all the other bad acts by the HRC over the years — especially their bad acts regarding a fully inclusive ENDA.
Monica Roberts has a pretty comprehensive take on transgender people’s history with the HRC over the last ten or so years in her Transgriot post Why The Transgender Community Hates HRC. This post by an African-American transgender activist is very well worth the read — she brings a lot of personal history with the HRC, as well as a strong, civil rights perspective to her piece.

One could

one could make the cynical argument that the HRC only got involved because the proposition as written not only would have repealed civil rights for trans people, but it would have removed civil rights for lesbian and gay people as well.

One could.  I will.

This all said, trans people can’t look at one recent good act in Gainesville without remembering all the other bad acts by the HRC over the years — especially their bad acts regarding a fully inclusive ENDA.

And doubly especially since there has never been a real apology for those past bad acts – because there has never been a real admission to them.
What has changed since 2007?  Real ‘reaching across the aisle’ to bring in (read: hire) trans people who have been on the front lines of this battle (read: against HRC) for years?  No – just one token hiring of someone that no one had even heard of in 2007.
And, of course, more fertilizer, er…, words.
Remember Topeka!

It’s no accidentthat Salmonese was a DNC operative before he took the job at HRC.

So, do I take itthat it’s still all right with you that the Civil Rights Act doesn’t include gay people?  

I have to disagree about one thing, Autumn.

As it is now, the organization perhaps already has an insurmountable credibility problem.

Perhaps?!  There is no “perhaps” about it.
I can honestly say that I don’t know even one grassroots LGBT activist who trusts anything HRC says, or who has not found contact/interaction with them unproductive at best.

?I thought he was with Emily’s List.

BoardIf this policy change is truly a policy change that is binding, then I think it’s a pretty big repudiation of Joe Solmonese, who basically justified excluding trans people from ENDA by saying that everyone but HRC was politically unsophisticated on LGBT issues in Congress.
I just hope there are individuals on the Board who keep his feet to the fire and ask questions about what the PLAN is to bring this bill to a vote, to engage the grassroots in supporting it, and to educate those unnamed members of Congress who supposedly dropped their supported in 2007.
I’m willing to let bygones be bygones and fight for this bill.  But I’m not willing to do that work if I will be thrown under the bus again at the last minute.

According to Wikipedia …… it was EMILY’s List, not the DNC.  And before that, he worked on individual campaigns, including Barney Frank and Michael Dukakis.
And still, EMILY’s List is (if I’m not mistaken), committed to electing 1) pro-choice, 2) Democratic, 3) women.  They’re very allied to the Democratic Party, and don’t work (again, I could be wrong, but I think I’m remembering this correctly) for Republican candidates, no matter how pro-choice they may be.
So the spirit of Q’s statement is still correct; Solmonese is in deep with the party.

I’d like to believe it …… but I can’t.  Should someone sit Joe Solmonese down and read him the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”?  Then, we could have a conversation about what lessons this story has to teach us in our real-life big-boy lives.
As much as I like Solmonese as a person and as much as I’d like to believe that he regrets his hasty promise and subsequent breaking of that promise, I think the best thing that he could do for the LGBT community would be to step down.  (Hey, there’s a job opening at GLAAD; maybe he could do that.)

It’s the whole packageHow many times will we just let them get by with this kind of stuff?
Beyond just the fires they have stoked with the trans community, they repeatedly will insert themselves haphazardly into state or local issues and then claim victory on their own. Gainsville is a perfect example of this. If you look at their “backstory” blog, you only have a sense of HRC – no reference to other organizations heavily involved in the effort like Equality Florida.
Here’s another beef – They boast a staff of nearly 150 (at least as of a couple of years ago). They claim to have ID’s of over 600,000 and a budget of $60 Million –but look at the staff listing on their website:
http://www.hrc.org/about_us/25…
33 staff listed. Want to know why? Most of the rest of that staff are ALL FUNDRAISERS of some kind – event managers, major gift officers, annual appeal, Federal Club…..
I know it takes a lot of money to run an organization especially on a national level, but come on – when will we stop just giving to this charade? They have not secured a single win at the federal level and are simply set to ride the coat tails of the current administration and then fundraise, fundraise, fundraise….

I thought I remembered some DNC connection in his background, too.  Should’ve double-checked.  Senility is setting in fast…

“Exclude us and transpeople will never see employment rights within our lifetimes and we are the ones most in need of protection.”I agree with this 100%.  And I’m not trans, so this isn’t a self-serving thing on my part.  I know that inclusive ENDA will also help cis-gendered LGBs, but that isn’t the main reason why I support it.  I support it mainly because transpeople are most at risk and do suffer the worst of the worst discrimination in employment and housing.  And while the rest of us do “come back” eventually to see to the passage of T-protective legislation, we usually take too damn long, and for me that is not acceptable.  
We all loved to repeat the words of the Three Musketeers as kids, “All for one and one for all”.  Is that sentiment only for ignorant children?

QCMKevin Naff at Queer Channel Media is already at it (though to be fair, I agree with the re-writing history aspect of his criticism) replete with the usual-suspect pro-incrementalism cheering section leading off the comments ( http://www.washblade.com/blog/… )
My thoughts: http://endablog.wordpress.com/…

Pending, oh sorry, Pender, remember what Deepthroat said.

“Follow the money.”

Forget partisanship, forget promises, and forget above board politics. Just follow the money and you’ll find the bus treads of betrayal.  
Who had an interest in raping ENDA? Who would have been hurt if ENDA was not inclusive, if its massive expansion of the ability of people from all groups with a protected statue to sue for redress became law? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the Chamber of Commerce and the NAM went berserk when ENDA was introduced. But with the Democrats in power they couldn’t call on Republicans to stop it. So Pelosi and Barney Frank stepped up to bat for them, and so did HRC, most Republicans and bigoted Democrats (and there are a lot of them). They gutted ENDA.  
Frank, acting for the Democrat majority, and with the support of HRC, accepted every amendment offered by the Republicans to eviscerate ENDA, including one that forbade the use of ENDA to undercut DOMA. That’s the precedent we have and it was set by HRC and the Democrats. It’ll weigh heavily in what ever bill comes up next.
Some form of UnitedENDA, hopefully a grassroots form, is going to have to be rebuilt and will have to put out the word that with a recession turning into a depression we need an inclusive ENDA and a tough hate crimes bill more than ever. And it’ll have to launch mass demonstrations to do what it takes to convince Congress that the social climate will reach the boiling point if they continue to fuck with us. And it’ll have to put out the word that we never forgot who our enemies are. Never.

let me ask this thanbut before I do
1. I know I have made posts in the past that have led some of the transgender/trans-allies on the board to yell at me.
 A. I do this to learn what other people think
 B. And I like to make people angry with me, ask my husband
2. I am not the greatest HRC fan, but for my own reasons.
3. I honestly have an issue when people don’t detach their own emotional fueled dislikes from an issue. That’s almost as bad as the right wingers…..so I like to test people’s reasons.
Anyway. Here’s the question
If HRC does not issue an apology, but HRC continues to include the transgender community in its efforts. When will they be forgiven?

Define “apology”We’re talking 30 years of bigotry, lies and the erecting of a false paradigm of exclusion-acceptability that has been copied at the state and local level – and learned by a younger generation of non-trans gay activists who may well not have anything against trans people but who have come to believe that so-called ‘incremental progress’ is the only possible way because the older generation of transphobes have overtly taught them so (as well as covertly by the perpetuation of the status quo.)
There can be no Bush Administration passive voice (‘mistakes were made’) apologies.
All actors must acknowledge their acts.
All books must be opened.
All names must be named.
Until that form of apology occurs, there is no moral or rational reason to believe that HRC is anything other than what it always has been.

They were already forgiven… then they did it againHRC made horrible mistakes with the trans community. Their events were regularly protested by transgender activist groups. They were out of step with the community. So they spent a lot of work rebuilding ties, making promises, listening to transpeople, and most of all committing themselves to support only a fully inclusive ENDA and hate crimes bill.
So why don’t we forgive them? We did. That’s not 2009, it’s 2007.
That’s BEFORE they used transpeople as human shields on the 2007 ENDA–using us to absorb the full brunt of the fundamentalist attacks and then being discarded. We’ve already been through this. At this point trusting them is just internalized self-loathing.
Whatever they do positive great. But honestly, I doubt if the trans community will ever trust them again. We will always have to assume that when push comes to shove, we will be discarded.

An ally’s responseAs a non-trans person who nevertheless considers himself an ally to the trans community, I’ll take a stab at this.
For me, it’s not about being “forgiven.”  It’s about credibility.  If the HRC never apologizes but consistently does the right thing where the “T” of LGBT is concerned, they will be trusted when the good results of their good actions outweigh the impact of the not-so-good results from their not-so-good actions.
It’s difficult to quantify trust.  If it is to be regained, it will happen gradually, over time.  I’m probably in the minority here, but I’ve already forgiven Solmonese and the HRC as an organization.  But I still can’t honestly say that their word is a bond, and that’s because they’ve gone back on their word before.  Trust begets credibility, and credibility begets effectiveness.  And right now, they’re a lot less effective than they should be, which is too bad.

But that’s just itor it at least raises other questions.
A. you are in the minority (if you’ve ever read any of the posts dealing with HRC). Forgiveness seems to be in short supply. And I’m not talking about forgetting, but about coming to a place where we can agree to work together for the common good.
B. When do we reach that balance? And who gets to decide?
C. And if HRC reads a lot of the posts left at the various LGBT sites, why would they want to include or work with transgender community? I’ve read posts from people who “scream” and demand HRC be at best shunned, or at worst calling for the heads of the leadership of HRC on a silver platter before they will ever trust another LG or B. Besides wanting to do the right thing what is the incentive?
 

If they start taking the HRC’s money……Then we’ll see how objective about the organization the grassroots activists remain.

Because…

And if HRC reads a lot of the posts left at the various LGBT sites, why would they want to include or work with transgender community?

Because they’ve arrogated to themselves the role of spokesorganization AND because they have made specific representations that they are doing so – specific representations that have caused people to part with money in HRC’s direction.
The reason that they should ‘want’ to – other than simply not to be bigots – is to stave off civil and criminal complaints over having defrauded those people who have parted with money in HRC’s direction based on those specific pro-trans representations.

If it doesnt include the T’s, it doesn’t include the bois or butches eitherand as a Lesbian activist, I am not willing to settle for a bill that protects only the neo-version of the Mattachinists so aptly portrayed in Milk
I cannot face my sisters were I to agree to leave half of them behind. It is a huge violation of the sisterhood and of feminist principles that we are committed to.
Joe only has to face his priviledged colleagues, I have to face a much broader group of women.

If they support inclusion to the bitter end, yes.If they waffle, or pull out or flip again, then no, they will not be forgiven for 2007
My forgiveness would only extend to ENDA; I am still angry for the disdain with which they treat Lesbian healthcare issues.

Politically Unsophisticated?I am, after 20 some years in banking and international law, fairly sophisticated in politics.
The HRC’s actions in 2007 were not politically sophisticated; they were politically spineless. You do not measure strength by the number of favours that you can call upon, just perhaps, maybe, possibly if you behave, that were earned by grovelling. Sometimes you just have to stand fast and take a loss, sometimes you have to bluff….

ForgivenessIf forgiveness means “coming to a place where we can agree to work together for the common good,” then I’m there — sort of.  Because while I cheer the HRC when it does good things, I’m always sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop.  They’ve been so disappointing in the past; its critics have every valid reason to not trust them implicitly.
If the NGLTF (Nat’l Gay & Lesbian Task Force) were as powerful as the HRC, and they had issued a statement pledging to support nothing less than an inclusive ENDA, it would be fantastic news, and might actually have some influence, because it would mean something.  When the HRC says that, it doesn’t mean much, because history has taught us that just because the HRC says something, it doesn’t mean that it will follow through.
What you witness on these boards and others is a direct result of the HRC’s actions.  It’s a great lesson about organizational ethics, and why it’s important for organizations – especially organizations that want to change the world for the better – to do the right thing, in the right way, every day, without fail.  Otherwise, this is what you get.

When they even that tally…Takes 10 good things to be forgiven for one bad one.
And they’ve got a serious 3 really bad ones and a handful of others.
It doesn’t help that when they talk about gay people, they also don’t mean (and never acknowledge) trans gay folk.
Rough estimate?  When they achieve housing, employment, and medical victories, and can show their effort.

Also …I find your Karl Popper quote interesting, in light of this discussion.

Simple answer:“And if HRC reads a lot of the posts left at the various LGBT sites, why would they want to include or work with transgender community?”
Because they can’t honestly be working for Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual rights if they aren’t working for the T as well — we are each other.

Look at Queerty for the Neo-Mattachinist reactionsOminous in terms of the possibility of the HRC not supporting but not opposing another gutted ENDA. The conserva-queer gay men’s antipathy for the trans-community is unfortunately reflective of the crowd at “Cafe Mattachine”(HRC) on Rhode Island Avenue.

… and so we shall rage against the mattachine!

I’d work with them……but I wouldn’t trust them, for all the reasons you and Kat mention. And if I worked with them, it wouldn’t mean I would ever join their organization, or ever give them money. I think they permanently forfeited any expectation of my financial support of their organization back in 2007.
Plus, if I’d work with them, I’d keep a watch on my back — they simply don’t have my trust. Heck, given their 10-year history, I’d expect to be backstabbed at this point.
And hey — I’d absolutely never give my permission for them to speak for me or my peers.
Let’s face it. The HRC is a follower the LGBT civil rights movement at this point instead being a leader. Other organizations have been more consistently progressive on civil rights for the whole alphabet soup community than the HRC has been for at least the last dozen years.
The HRC, simply put, is just a weak ass organization. I don’t think the organization is pattently evil (like Focus On The Family and American Family Association are, in my mind), but I certainly don’t think the HRC is anything more than a fair weather friend either.

Politically IneptThat is a better description of HRC. When they were in a position to do something to head off what did happen with ENDA, they didn’t.
To be fair they seem to have some good folks who would go to bat for transpeople, but I guess one has to look at their leadership and it is just not there. I’ll be kind and say they have timidity when for their big bucks they should have temerity.

WellAs I’ve stated before, I’m a student (although an older one, second time around, issues with sister, if she wants to upstage me and become a lawyer than I’ll become a doctor, etc. I probably need to see a therapist at some point to deal with those issues
I ask these questions to further understand what is happening within the larger LGBT social/political paradigm. There’s also the fact that I am one of the leaders of a local lgbt group, currently involved in non-discrimination battle. Add to that mix HRC’s offer to lend support……see my above comment regarding my opinion of HRC.
As for the Popper quote, I think it highlights my real opinion, to a point.
Suggested reads to further understand Ido Orin’s works (named my cat after him, Ido),

Maybe you didn’t read itbut I don’t 100% trust HRC myself but for other reasons. Many of these have to do with past events of my own that have nothing to do with the larger conversation. I feel my even mentioning them here would taint any productive conversation regarding the role of HRC within the LGBT communities.

And not to inflame the issue morebut I am placing this within a larger debate regarding the future of the LGBT movement.
Would it surprise you if I said I know LGB individuals who are very nice, peaceful and do not seem to have any issues with transgender individuals; do a hard calculated resources versus benefits analysis of the situation and determined that it would be best for the movement to drop the “T”?
Not that these people would do it, just that the benefits of letting go of the trans community greatly out-weight any support the LGB community currently gets from that community (money, support, volunteers, etc.).
Which of course I don’t support
   

Sorry that post was not 100% complete, I was losing battery and had toeither abort it or post it, quickly.
I guess to sum it up. I believe passion and emotions are useful tools when fighting for equality. But not the best tool all of the time. I argue against people who only seem to rely on those when making a decision. Our enemies use emotions (fear, hate, etc.) as weapons against us. I would like the LGBT community to be above that, because our greatest weapons are logic and our shared basic humanity.
When our opponents claim “christian” values and when their true objectives comes to light the world sees the lies. We as the “good guys” should work to be better than they are.  

well since you askedand everyone else has had a chance to comment. My own response would of course be anger at first. Of course that would be the natural reaction to such an event.
Eventually I would have to come to a point when I step back and think about 2 thinks.
1. The people leading this group are human and humans are not perfect. Humans in fact are very stupid at times.
2. Unlike many who claim to forgive, I believe that allowing my emotions to influence me is wrong. I would have to forgive them.
Of course I would not forget what happened. I would also work twice as hard so they understand that what they did was not the correct course of action. I would not write off the organization completely, too many times our communities do that and we are left starting from nothing.  

No; it needs to be amended,but I certainly don’t begrudge them for passing it in 1964 even though they excluded gay people. The country would be a lot worse off today if they hadn’t.