Tweet
The Fact Sheet: Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination ended with a paragraph that left me believing that the Obama Administration was addressing the civil rights 
of the transgender subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (emphasis added), but not doing it directly. The paragraph in question:
The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.
So, I was on the call this afternoon where the Office of Personal Management’s director, John Berry, talked about the memorandum President Obama was going to sign prior to its signing at 5:45 PM EDT. Alex Blaze, from Bilerico, asked a question about whether transgender people — the term gender identity and expression — would be included in the proposed regulations. Berry’s answer wasn’t clear to me in his original answer, but in answering a question from John Aravosis on exactly what was changing with this memorandum, Director Berry stated:
Gender identity is a non-work-related factor, and in the guidelines [to federal agencies] we will be making that clear. [...] I made it very clear [in my answer to Alex Blaze] that gender identity will be added and made very clear in our guidelines.
So why didn’t the President say “gender identity” in the fact sheet?
Below the fold is the entire fact sheet on the memorandum. Note that the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are not in the fact sheet. Note also in signing ceremony, the President used the abbreviation LGBT, but didn’t use the words “transgender,” “gender identity,” or “gender identity and expression” therein either. (In fact if you’re bisexual, you no doubt notice the President’s reticence to you that term as well.)
Since the President has only used the term “transgendered” once previously I can document (here), and the term “gender identity” once previously I can document (here) — and both of these times were in response to direct questions.
The President and his staff seem to me to be intentionally avoiding use of the terms “transgender” or “gender identity and expression” on camera. If you were transgender and noticed this lack of using community related terminology for your identity, what conclusion would you draw?
And hey, thinking about it, Did you see Joe Solmonese on Keith Oberman….
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
…or Rep. Tammy Baldwin on Rachel Maddow…
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
…speak the words in question? What words did you not hear spoken by our LGBT “leaders”? (Added note from Autumn: I missed it in the first couple of listenings, but Joe Solomese mentions “gender identity” at about the 4:28 minute point in the Keith Oberman video. It wasn’t mentioned in the HRC press release of the memorandum; however, but in my mind I believe saying the words on television were probably more important then getting it in the press release. I would have preferred to have seen the phrase used in both the TV appearance and the press release though.)
I would say — and even John Aravosis of Americablog would agree — that the biggest change for LGBT civil rights the memorandum heralds is federal workplace protections for transgender employees; the addition of federal employment protections based on gender identity and expression.
Which of our LGBT civil rights groups’ “leaders,” or our lesbian, gay, or ally political representatives said the word “transgender,” or the phrase “gender identity and expression”? Which ones spoke of the “gender identity and expression” changes to federal employment regulations that the memorandum heralds?
From the media releases from the organizations below, take a look and see 1.) who says the words “transgender” and/or “gender identity and expression” and 2.) who mentions the transgender employment protections that this memorandum is to add. I’ll give you a hint — the only time the word “transgender” is used is in the phrase “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender,” and that is only used by three of the organizations’ in the statements listed below. 
And, no one but the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) — who’s media release is linked to in the graphic near the top of this piece — and The Task Force mention employment protections for transgender federal employees.
• Council For Global Equality
• Family Equality Council
• Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)
• Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
• National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR)
• Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
• Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN)
• The Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Frankly at this point, I don’t doubt at all Director Berry’s commitment to adding federal regulations regarding transgender people — I think we’re going to see specific language on “gender identity” is going come to pass. That’s the good news for federal employees who may are transgender…transsexual. 
And, as many would guess, not mentioning gender identity and expression by our politicians (links to two politicians statements as examples — the statements of Representatives Baldwin and Leiberman — are found by selecting two press release graphics included within this blog article) and LGBT civil rights organizations means conservative “Christian” organizations — such as Focus On The Family, also don’t mention transgender people when discussing the impact of this memorandum. I would say this is small consolation as they will be discussing this when the new federal regulations are submitted within 90-days.
However, on the 30th of June we’ll really know how serious the President is about transgender civil rights; the 30th of June is the last day that the Department of Justice can file an appeal to the Diane Schroer case. If the Department Of Justice appeals this case, then we will know that just like the Obama Administration on DOMA, what the Obama Administration says in speeches and signing ceremonies won’t be followed through with “fierce advocacy” by our President and his administration.
The message I get from the words “transgender” or “gender identity and expression” not being spoken is that transgender people and issues are very secondary to lesbian and gay issues, and that it’s considered dangerous politically to say the words. In my opinion, this failure to use transgender related terminology doesn’t bode well for transgender people and civil rights. Who doesn’t remember ENDA 2007/2008?
As for our politicians and LGBT civil rights organizations: Speak the word transgender, or the phrase gender identity and expression, when you speak of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people’s civil rights. And, speak these transgender subcommunity words on television. Transgender people deserve better than the silence on our subcommunity’s terminology — on our subcommunity’s issues — that we’re receiving from the Obama administration, progressive politicians, and LGBT non-profits/civil rights organizations.
Don’t message transgender people out of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement — it’s just not acceptable.
~~~~~
Further reading:
* Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination
* Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And Agencies
65 Comments
He used it once in 2004, Autumn
http://windycitymediagroup.com…
But, again, not on camera.
Right…And I documented that in the piece above…
And as you pointed out, the time he used the term “transgendered,” and the time he used “gender idenity” — well, neither of these uses of trans terminology were on camera.
Oh, I didn’t click on the link, my badbut I did post the original source though, Autumn. That was before I became a Blender.
My apologies, no intention to upstage.
And I’ve read that interview a few times, and I never noticed that!
Did you notice his use of the word “fierce” though? Barack sure loves to use that word!
Thanks Autumn!For another great piece. And well said.
I wonder if President Obama reads the Blend.
Don’t worry about it.I was just saying I was aware of it too. That’s literally the only time I can find he used a variant of the word “transgender,” and The Advocate article I linked to is the only place where I can verify he used the term “gender identity.”
He and his White House staff seem to be avoiding the words. Socially progressive and LGBT politicians, as well as LGBT non-profits/civil rights organizations appear to be avoiding the terms as well, except when used in the phrase “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.” And if you notice, President Obama doesn’t even say “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender,” he instead pretty much only uses the term “gay” by itself, or uses the acronymn LGBT without defining the acronymn.
I’m sure if a person who primarily identified as a bisexual wrote a piece, he, she, or ze could probably write a similar piece as mine about how politicians and LGBT non-profits/civil rights organizations avoid using the term “bisexual” too.
In terms of politics, isn’t this better?
Perhaps I’m naive… Isn’t this better than stating explicitly who the new memorandum does affect? Isn’t it best in the matter of law and its interpretation to be as general as possible to encompass a whole class of people that the writer might not have thought at the time to include?
Could Obama be keenly aware of this and the politics of using red-flag words, carefully avoid being specific to diminish objections and at the same time include as many groups of people as possible?
Speak to it, alwaysWhen people use the phrase LGBT — both inside and outside the community — listen to what they say around it.
Listen for them to include lesbians. Listen for them to include Bisexuals. Listen for them to include gay men. Listen for them to include transfolk.
When they use the double adjective “transgendered”, you know they are not aware of what they are speaking to, or they made an error becoming increasingly common place.
WHen they speak about something that only happens to transsexuals, but not to drag queens or female impesonators, listen for those break downs as well.
ANd when you hear them not speak to them, call them out on it.
Do not let our diversity be erased, do not let the existence of so muc wonderful variety be forgotten.
IT doesn’t matter who it is, either. If they are speaking to community wide issues, they will speak these things. If they are speaking to a narrow focus, then they won’t.
And if they use LGBT or GLBT, or whatever order you want for those letters and their additions, then remind them they are climbing to speak to all those issues.
You cannot use all four letters to justify one. You cannot forget any part of it.
DOn’t let those who claim to speak for us forget the least of us in their own minds.
Words have to be thereAs I understand it, the courts have ruled that vague language does not cut it in terms of anti-discrimination laws and policies. Thus a term like “factors not related to job performance” may not be sufficient to actually ensure protections. I thought Berry was saying in his response to Aravosis that the more explicit instructions going out to the agencies and deparments would include the actual terminology, but I could be wrong.
While I can’t speak to all sides…… from the trans perspective, no, that isn’t good enough.
Transition “makes people uncomfortable”, which is, in most places I’m familiar with, considered “a factor that relates to job performance”. ANd the reason for such is usually the gender expression.
Take, for example, someone early in transtion who happens to be a sales rep, with high customer contact. They do not meet most people’s expectations of what a woman or a man is “supposed” to look like. The employer gets a call from someone who happens to be one of our opponents, but is fairly closeted about it that complains and then the contract with them is lost.
That’s going to be the Fault of the trans employee in most folks’ eyes, and thus, under that kind of wording, they would be fired for what was, truly, part of gender identity and expression.
Its not good enough.
It’s the same as with the anti-bullying laws, etc.:Not having a particular group explicitly listed seems to let the bigots feel confident that the law doesn’t apply as long as the victims are [insert group here]. If Obama has been paying any attention, he knows this — and knows that unless he’s much more explicit about what forms of discrimination are not allowed, lower-level managers and HR people will continue to discriminate with impunity.
I’m glad you wrote about this Autumn.I see two things going on simultaneously, and they’re not necessarily connected. One is the issues of deliberately staying away from what some think are hot button terms like “gender identity”. Seems clear to me that Obama is trying to send the message to transpeople and allies that he’s “with them” by using the more cryptic “LGBT”. His sincerity is, of course, up for debate, but all politicians do this. Bush was quite adept at stringing along the religious righties with similar semi-encrypted messages.
The other issue is simply one of familiarity and education. A lot of people still don’t know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, and that plays out in political settings as well as everyday life. I’ll never forget walking into my precinct caucus last year and have my very lefty and otherwise with-it neighbor ask “what is this LGBT?” while looking at the sign-in sheet. It is astounding how many people who are allies aren’t up on the language and definitions. We all have to keep educating. As dyssonance said, keep your ears open and don’t let an opportunity to educate go by.
Sadly, “very secondary” is a profound understatementAs a cis queer male, my experience has been that cis fags are even more transphobic than James Dobson on steroids. And I don’t buy the argument that their actions stem entirely from a belief that transgender people are a political liability for cis gay and lesbian rights.
I can only speak from my experience, and IMHO, the fetishization of masculinity prevalent among cis fags is rooted in sexism and internalized homophobia. Hence all the personal ads by “straight acting” “dudes” looking for other “bros” to “chill with”. Despite their masculine posturing and their delusions to the contrary, in the eyes of most Americans they might as well be wearing a miniskirt and a pair of fabulous pumps. Most straight people simply don’t distinguish between cis fags and the transgender community.
Many cis fags (including members of the white homotocracy who lead groups like HRC) mistakenly think that Missouri Synod Lutheran Churches across red state America will welcome them with open arms if they can prove that they are “just regular dudes” and not one of those people.
Add several heaping teaspoons of internalized homophobia to a jar of fermented sexism, throw in a liberal dash of xenophobia, stir in 1 cup of cowardice and 1 cup of “lack of integrity”, cover jar, and shake vigorously…et voila! You have the perfect recipe for a cravenly heteronormative, transphobic cis fag with pathetically transparent macho affectations who doesn’t consider you part of the same community to which he belongs. And he makes sure to let the whole world know it at every opportunity.
During the trial of Angie Zapata’s murderer, I lost count of how many self-identified cis gay men made statements like “he (sic) had it coming for pretending to be a woman”" or “I hope the killer is found not guilty”.
That’s some Fred Phelps shit.
Frankly, until the cis gay and lesbian community overwhelmingly condemns and disavows such transphobic violence within its own ranks and makes some sort of formal reparation to the transgender community (for tossing you folks under a whole fleet of buses over the years), we don’t deserve a single civil right.
braces self for inevitable shit storm
Maybe I need to append this to the Guide to the Gay Community (is that even fair?) for Dummies thread.
What does “cis” mean?
It needs to be specific.I could see where the term “basis of factors not related to job performance” could be twisted by somebody that wanted to, to use somebodies “gender identity and/or expression” AS a job performance issue. It’d be dirty and underhanded, but what about bigots isn’t?
Cis…It just means “not trans.”
Totally agreeI’ve noticed the same thing, and it’s definitely not an isolated phenomenon, either.
Pride Proclamation has itHe did use it in the Pride Proclamation (See June 1 Pride Proclamation
In it he said:
We have to make him live up to his words..
FYI – Federal Departments through their GLOBE organizations are pushing for GI/GE in civil rights statement revisions. The Secretary of Agriculture just signed last week an update of the Special Emphasis Program for hiring/recruiting/retaining to include an upgrade of the LGBT SEP to the same level as the other ones for Women, Hispanics etc.
We are chipping away… and we have NOT forgotten our transgender employees at USDA!
That phrase has been in federal regulations for years……and did nothing to help Diane Schroer. The problem is that you can say that transitioning in the workplace is a factor that will impact job performance.
In fact, in telling Col. Schroer (Ret.) why they wouldn’t hire her, the Library of Congress stated that they didn’t believe she would be able to maintain her contacts — specifically because she identified as transgender and was going to transition in the workplace — therefore, it would impact her ability to do the job they originally planned to hire her to do.
The “unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance” phrase in federal regulations seems to mean nothing with regards to trans people — and will continue to mean nothing without identifying “gender identity and expression” as a protected class.
Depending on the crap, lots of transfolk will back you up.Sadly, it is indeed a two way street there — and a lot of the trans homophobia is based in that very treatment.
Call me a dummy….I am a gay guy, I know what LGBT stands for and have used this for 20 years now, even back when there was a great deal of infighting in our community over whether it should be GLBT or LGBT. My take on that argument was that we were wasting time over what to call an accronym and just being a bunch of babies over who gets to go first. I could care less about whether we call it LGBT TBLG or GTBL or what ever combination anybody can come up with.
What I don’t understand and this is why I am asking is what is the difference between Transgender and Gender Identity? How does this apply to the LGBT movement. Maybe you have been preaching to the choir but I have been awol from the community for some years now and live a bland boring life in NC.
yup
Cis means on the same sideas opposed to trans, which means on the other side.
During ancient Roman times, Cisalpine Gaul was in northern Italy– i.e. on the same side of the Alps as Rome. Transalpine Gaul was in France, i.e. on the other side of the Alps.
That’s how I learned it. Everyone else cites chemistry terminology for the cis- and trans- prefixes, but I have more of a flair for ancient history.
Kabbalistic permutationsOne classic activity of Kabbalists is to permutate the letters of the Tetragrammaton. For example, starting with YHVH the series can run: YHVH VHYH HYHV HVHY, etc., until you list all possible combinations.
Likewise with how people don’t always agree on the order of letters in LGBT. It’s given as GLBT about as frequently. And I’ve sighted instances of BGLT. And it occurred to me, to be fair to all four groups, if we could regularly rotate the order through all the permutations, it would avoid privileging or slighting any one group.
So here’s the complete set of the Queer Tetragrammaton: Collect all 24!
LGBT
BGLT
GLTB
GBTL
LGTB
LBGT
GBLT
BLGT
GTBL
GTLB
GLBT
BGTL
LTBG
BTLG
TLGB
TBGL
LTGB
LBTG
TBLG
BLTG
TGBL
TGLB
TLBG
BTGL
I feel like a geneticist ringing the changes on nucleotides.
Its surprisingly simpleEveryone has a gender Identity — that sense of their own self as a man or a woman, boy or a girl, or something both or neither.
Everyone. Close your eyes. Picture yourself.
Do you see a boy or a girl or a blending or neither or both? That’s an easy way to get the idea of gender identity that oversimplifies it.
Not all people are transgender, though. Depending on your use of the word, transgender can mean anyone who sees themself or expresses themselves outside the norm of expectations for what and how a man or woman should act or behave.
To a great extent, this could mean that the most effeminate guys and most butch gals could be, to some extent, transgender.
Transgender is not merely transsexuals, either — most transfolk simply don’t look or behave the way we think of men and women as behaving or looking, and have no interest in genital reassignment surgery.
Transsexuals, however, well, we not only need it, we want it so badly we’ll do darn near anything to get it. But fight for transsexuals, and you pretty much get everyone else covered.
IT applies because the people who were involved, who fought back, at Stonewall, were gender variant (sort of a synonym for transgender) — they weren’t allowed into the spaces and places that were relevant to those who were not back then.
It applies because back then, there was no letter soup — there was only gay.
It applies because it is those people that our opponents and the folks in the middle think of when someone says Gay and Lesbian.
We are linked through a 150 years of the immediate past, and because a lot of gay people are trans, and a lot of trans people are gay.
ThanksI have another question…why do we need all the letters then, why cant we all just be gay? Why do we have to separate the boys from the girls and those in the middle?
We are as a community all some variation of gay in my humble opinion. Why do we have to divide everything. Kinsey him self said that sexuality was fluid. Some of us start out as asexual, define ourself and then our identity evolves.
Chaz Bono is a fine example. She came out as a lesbian many years ago, and now is transitioning to a man. Now that he is ready to do that we would not call him a lesbian right? So on some level those of us in the LGBT arena are all somewhere at somepoint just gay? Why do we have to define gay as just men? I am not trying to be a dork or an ass, I am just asking?
On OlbermanJoe mentions Gender Identity at about 4:28.
“non-discrimination policies that will cover sexual orientation and gender identity”
ChazChaz presents as a man. Chaz is attracted to females and presumably would identify as heterosexual male.
(This will make The Peter’s head explode.)
because sexual orientationand gender identity are two different things.
“gay” describes your sexual orientation, not your gender identity.
some gay people are transgender and some are cisgender. likewise, some transgender people are straight, some bi/lesbain/gay.
i personally don’t mind all bi, lesbian and gay people being lumped together as “gay”, not do i mind all LGBT being lumped into “queer”. but that’s just me. others don’t like that, and who am i to label others in a way that is offensive to them? so breaking it down into the most precise terms (lgbt) seems the best way to go. it also helps prevent any sub-group among us from disappearing through the cracks.
Umm..call me a dummy, too, because I raninto an issue of grammatical tense when speaking of Chaz Bono the other day. I was correcting someone who referred to Chaz as “she” when I was stumped by, “well, how far back does that go?” and I had no answer. Just because we say Chaz identifies as male…this isn’t sounding like what I’m trying to ask…
Maybe Diane Schroer is a better example; does one say “When he was a Special Forces commander”? After all, he was, she wasn’t.No, this is what I want to ask: When speaking of someone pre- or post-transition, or for that matter, those in the transition process, does one apply gender-specific pronouns retroactively? Was Chaz working for the HRC or was Chastity? Do we use the male pronoun for Chastity retroactively? And if so, how far back does this apply? My best guess is that I’m relatively safe using “she” for Chaz before any announcement was made, and “he” after.
I’m using the hair-color rule here, if my brunette friend Jane shows up as blond suddenly, she’s automatically, “My blond friend, Jane, you’ve met her…” But it’s not retroactive, even if Jane tells me she’d always felt like a blond.
Is there even a rule of etiquette about this yet? Help!
P.S. If it’s retroactive, is there a limit? I remember seeing Chastity Bono on the Sonny and Cher Show as a toddler, I don’t mean to offend, but I really can’t see referring to her as he then. Thanks.
That’s easy, Rick!You need to look back on the early days of the movement.
There were first the homophile groups like the Janus Society and One, Inc. which were primarily for gay men.
When the lesbians were shut out, they began their own groups, primary of which were the Daughters of Bilitis.
As the movement progressed in the late 60s and 70s, the sexism still was prevalent, when groups like the Gay Liberation Front formed, but only allowed lesbians a limited role, and stayed that way for a few years.
There are a number of great books out there, Rick which chronicle the struggle for lesbians, bisexuals and transfolk to be included.
As you see in earlier posts; rich, white, gay men still think they are the top of the heap, and once they feel they’ve reached respectability for themselves, the rest of us can go to hell.
Dumb response but please correct me if I am wrong.My rule of thought was that before the announcement was made regarding the transition was that it would be acceptable to refer to Chaz as a female, and now that the transition has been announced I refered to Chaz post announcement as he…
If I am wrong someone tell me, but this goes to my larger argument about sexuality being fluid and why all the need to have so much conversation about individualizing our movement. This is not just a “Gay” “Lesbian” “Bi” or “Transgender” issue, yet here we are parsing and none of us have any rights.
I would almost rather that we just call it the supercalafragalisticexpialidohcias (snark) movement rather than sit around parsing whether or not one person or the other was offended that somehow they were left out because some nimrod used “gay” rather than LGBT.
When I say Gay…that to me means all of us, LGBT, not just the males but all of us. I don’t parse unless I am refering to an idividual, versus the “movement”. When I talk about “gay” rights I am talking about LGBT rights, in my pea brain we are all gay, gay means all of the individualized identities to me. Aren’t we all at some point betwixed and between?
I dated women as a young man, do I refer to that as the hetro years? I dated women and men for two years, do I refer to that time as the bi years, for 20 years I have been exclusively gay, dating men only…
Sometimes all of the parsing gets tiresome is all I am saying. Can we just settle on LGBT and be done with it and when some nimrod like the guy in the WH uses “Gay” rather than LGBT can we just not understand that the meaning includes LGBT and not just Gay men?
I am really not trying to be an ass but just trying to understand all of this.
Lurleen pretty much nailed it.
So go with what she’s said.
To it I would add that, in general, I don’t find myself thinking “gay”, given that as a woman who likes men, I tend to think of myself as straight — just as I did when I was guy who liked women.
Its a matter of time and context — we’ve fractured since then — due to external pressures mostly (psychologists, feminists, and more), and the equivalent to what was gay is now LGBT.
But more to the point, not all of us share the same issues — before the fight for marriage rights, hetero transsexuals could marry in all the states. They’ve lost some of those rights — while other transsexuals have gained those rights.
DADT does nothing for transfolk, but a change to the health care laws regarding surgery wouldn’t do much for most gay men or lesbians, either.
Its little things, while the big things still count.
GLBT – a hierarchy…Webcomic artist Megan Rose Gedris has a great summary of the relative weight given to the letters in GLBT:
“Lots of times, within the gay community, I feel like “GLBT” is a hierarchy”
http://rosalarian.livejournal….
General etiquette as *i* understand it is before they come out is still old (so she in Chaz’s case), after is current.
Match it to the presentation.
And I recall sonny and cher too.
Yes, it is retroactive, I do not want any reminder of the old, wrong, gender attached to me any moreI was always a woman in essence. I was only pretending to be male because from early childhood it had been forced on me and I was given no options. Now that I’ve righted that painful wrong, I don’t want to be labeled by its ghost even with reference to my past.
In other words, I have been “she” my whole life, even if years ago people didn’t know it. Anyone recounting my past needs to call me “she” consistently all the way through. I know lots of other people of trans history who feel the same way. But this has usually not been honored by cisgender writers. I hope they will learn this is what we want, and respect that.
I have also encountered some trans people who feel more comfortable with their former identities, and don’t mind narrating their history in the wrong gender. All I’m saying is they do not speak for me. I’ve put that painful past behind me and moved on, and I do not want it revisited.
Unless Chaz indicates otherwise, he’s been “he” throughout his whole life as far as I’m concerned, and Diane was “she” all through her military service, unless she indicates otherwise.
I respectfully dyssagree.
I can understand that…but once again no one is answering the larger questions about our movement posed in both of my comments.
Exclusion is for bigots. Like Barney and Barry. Proclamations, laws like ENDA and ‘administrative guidelines’ are more worthless than not if they exclude terms like transgender and “gender identity and expression.” Then they exclude transfolk and large numbers of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who don’t conform to the norm. That was the opinion of the ACLU, Lambda Legal, the NCLR and others during the debate on gutting ENDA and all the reading I did at the time led me to believe they were right.
We have to insist that they be reinstated and that the original ENDA be reintroduced, not Barney Franks gutted version. This would be an important point to raise in local demonstrations about SSM and at the national March on Washington.
“why cant we all just be gay”You’re right. It is only just a word. Sort of like whenever we refer to mankind, everybody knows that includes females, too.
So, why can’t we all just be lesbians? Works for me.
several people did comment on the “larger questions” about our movementLurleen, Marlene, and Dyssonance all commented on why just using the term ‘gay’ as an umbrella doesn’t work well. Trying to pretend that our community is monolithic won’t help get us legal protections/rights or social acceptance, since (1) the inability to name our differences and, therefore, different needs will result in “forgetting” some sectors’ needs (and I guarantee that it won’t be the cis white gay men who are left behind), (2) leaving some people feeling left out of the movement (because they don’t look like the cis white gay men who have always been the face of a “gay” movement) will weaken our political power, and (3) by not forcing the public to consider our various differences by naming them we won’t ever reach the level of education needed in the general public. On this last point, I’ve found the acronym LGBT very useful in my religious community, since people often ask me about it, which opens the door to conversations about why bisexual and transgender are included, what gender identity is, etc. In other words, naming our differences opens the door to education (and, in my experience, forces well-meaning liberals to add “gender identity/expression to the list of things they don’t want to be prejudiced about).
Or the Trans-Tiberiumthat part of Rome on the other side of the Tiber, now called the Trasteverte…..
what is the difference….between transgender and “gender identity/expression” when one uses LGBT is that not enough? As I have stated I always use LGBT so is it that when someone says “gay” refering to the “community” that I am supposed to correct them and tell them to call it LGBT and not gay?
When I read “cis white gay men” which apparently I am one of, I kind of find that offensive, especially the remark that “and I guarantee that it won’t be the cis white gay men who are left behind” As far as I am concerned we are all in the same lifeboat, adrift in the ocean and none of us have any rights at this point.
Do you think all white gay men are better off than you? Are the scars I bear from homophobia any less real than the ones you have? Because when any of us make those kind of generalizations it certainly does not foster understanding, but separates us and marginalizes the same bigotry that we are all exposed to.
I have only attempted to ask reasonable questions and to find honest answers in a feeble attempt to find unity with others in my community, I am also asking questions in a forum where I think it is appropriate to ask these questions.
When people say “Gay” and I mean heterosexuals it is often meant to define “other” I get that, it is easy for them because it explains other than heterosexual to them and it is one syllable versus four. I’m not making excuses but seriously, people are lazy and that is where I think it comes from. When they do this it is not really meant to disregard the L, B or T it is just their way of lumping all of the others together.
Truth be told…… so do I, but when writing about trans lives, it becomes sorta difficult to do it any other way unless dealing with one’s own life.
And for most transfolk — that is, the non-transsexual ones — its still generally more accurate than not.
What about the Mattachine Society?Were they exclusively male?
my badI did not scroll up to see those comments, just refresh and it put me right back in the same place.
I answered the question to difference earlier…But to address a few things:
Transfolk get struck with both transphobia and homophobia.
persons of color get struck with racism and the above.
The poor get tramped by the wealthy.
The less privileged in our movement have, historically, been left out by the more privileged — sometimes for decades.
And so, yes, as a cis white gay man, you do indeed have it better than a trans woman of color. In ways that you can’t see because you benefit from it.
Just as a white straight man benefits in ways that you can see but he cannot.
Its not insulting (indeed, once you become aware of it you can use it as a tool to do more good for more people), even though it sounds somewhat like it is.
If Gay, to you, can encompass straight people, women, men, children who haven’t discovered their sexuality, and more, then for you, its a working idea. But youll still have to express that more clearly when talking to others.
Just As I do when speaking about Trans- and Cis-.
FOr me, the transrights issue is paramount, but to achieve my ends, I have to fight for everyone, because we cross every single line there is in our diversity alone, from straight men and women who see themselves as such, to transsexual men and women such as myself, to the bisexual and genderqueer and androgyne and asexual nongendered sorts.
When I talk to others, I have to break it down. But for me, its all trans, much like for you its all gay.
Some people use ‘queer’ as a deliberately vague labelThis is a sensitive issue for a lot of people, so I’m only going to speak for myself. As a cis-gender homosexual, if I must supply a label, I generally use ‘queer’ rather than ‘gay’ to emphasize: (a) that I am who I am; (b) that I like who I like; (c) that I oppose heteronormativity AND gender normativity; and (d) that I think that if you want to know more, you should get to know me rather than depend on a label. Some people really like this term because it is, to them, a one-size-fits-all label for everything not cis, straight, and prejudiced; others hate it because of its past use a slur or because they find that it emphasizes different-ness. Your mileage may vary.
Umbrellas and Getting Outta the Rain“why cant we all just be gay? Why do we have to separate the boys from the girls and those in the middle?”
As Pollyanna pointed out “mankind” means us all as well, right. Yet, does it? Ot we could get really picky and mention that every human noun/pronoun descriptor in English, other than person/people, manages to get “he” or “man” or “men” into the descriptors used for women. “human being”?
And lesbian could mean us all as well, yet the choice was “gay.” Or for that matter we could all be referred to collectively as “bisexual” or “transgender.” What would be the difference?
Do I think that gay males control the LTBG? Well, yes, for the larger part. But women do seem to be getting a bit more acceptance these days, especially if we manage to appear to be in the “correct” economic/social group.
I would suppose that “gay” could become the new “you guys.”
I think it would just be nice though for males and gays to understand how that language could and does affect women and prolly bi- and trans-folk. Just some recognition that there was some understanding that “gay: may have some problems for some of us as an umbrella term.
I’ll go for what I’ve already written LTBG.
transphobia…Never heard that one before until today, I always just assumed that homophobia covered it all…
I will use LGBT from now on when refering to the community at large but I have to say that regardless of being a white gay may and you being a trans woman of color neither of us have any rights at all at the end of the day.
I can accept that yes given my skin color and gender I have had certain opportunities that would not have existed otherwise. What I can tell you from my personal experience is that I work in a field dominated mostly by straight white males and I have succeeded in large part because I am meticulous, tenacious and a fighter. Not because I am gay but in spite of it. I rose through the ranks in my company because I went to work every day and said I will work harder, smarter and better than everyone I work with.
My parents kicked me out when I came out at 19 so the fact that I accomplished this says a lot. Every man I work with has a degree except me, yet every day I blow them out of the water with what I get done…that has nothing to do with my color or sexual orientation…it is in spite of it.
Same here, but I am sensitive when I can be to the word’s hurtful connotation.
That tenacity…..comes from being an incredible person.
I do like the idea of a queer tetragrammatonhowever the number could become rather complex if we add a few letters to include queer, questioning, intersex, asexual and perhaps a second T to differentiate between transgender and transsexual… oy, I probably have forgotten a couple of letters…
Yes. And heteronormative in appearance and expression. Dress well, be extremely discreet, call no attention or stand out. It was the core of the closet.
Butch women were not allowed in the Bilitis groups, either — had to fit into the mores of the day.
Check Mate.
/ thread.
And there is this line…
<><><><><><><><>
And the concern is what, exactly? That they will contaminate the kids? Or teach them about incest?
Why, exactly, is a transman or transwoman in a “position of authority” a concern?
Mileage is way beyond the warranty.i’ve dated a couple of black men. My last boyfriend for quite some time. My frame of reference is influenced from their input.
The ‘reclaiming words’ thing is a load of crap, imho. It’s just too much bad history, and too many ‘outsiders’ (Joe Q. Mouthbreather) don’t ‘get’ the point of the attempt. It perpetuates harm. It doesn’t nullify it.
‘Tranny’ drags up baggage right along with shemale. My ex hated any variation of the ‘N’ word. i shake my head when gays and gender-variant use ‘queer’, because i’ve seen and heard too many people laughing about it to make it anything more than self-deprecating at best. But then again, i’m not gay, and i’m not black. Therefore my opinion on that doesn’t matter.
Subjective view is subjective.
i’ve always thought ‘t-girl’ was harmless. A little odd if applied to women of retirement age, but otherwise harmless. It’s provoked anger in feminist-oriented women before, so hey. Somebody’s always gonna be pissed about something.
It does havethe earliest historical provenance.
Although it would complicate Eddie Izzard’s description of himself as a “male lesbian”.
Oops, sorry.In that case, I’m sorry my response was a bit snippy. I was a little bit annoyed at what I perceived as a deliberate ignoring or dismissing of the responses other people had given, which you’ve now clarified was not the case.
My point about “cis white gay men” was not that folks who fall into that category are less oppressed (I think playing Oppression Olympics is destructive and useless), but that folks who fall into that category have historically, and continue to, run most major “LGBT” organizations (although this is less true of the composition of the Executive Directors than of the chairs of the boards and, even, other board members). It’s only natural, therefore, that their concerns have historically been foregrounded in those organizations. That’s why I don’t think it will be the concerns of cis white gay men that would be ignored if we don’t name–and therefore consciously consider–our diversity.
Transgender versus gender identity/expressionTransgender doesn’t really include butch women, femmy guys, etc – cisgender people who don’t do any overt gender-crossing in their dress but are still considered “mannish women” or “girly men”. A cis man in a Utilikilt may not be transgender, but his gender presentation doesn’t conform to current American gender orthodoxies. At least that’s how I read the difference.
queer, etcI use queer to describe myself and as an umbrella term for non-straight people, but I agree that using it as an umbrella term is problematic. For one thing, part of the reason I find it so seamlessly comfortable as a descriptor of myself is that I’ve never (at least to my recollection) heard it used as a negative term. It just wasn’t a popular insult in the time/place I was growing up, and it’s not used as an insult in the cities/neighborhoods where I’ve lived as an adult (at least not in my hearing). So I’ve got some privilege around my experiences of the use of that term.
Another common critique of using the word queer as an umbrella term is that it often, deliberately or not, communicates that one is speaking to/about young people, white people, urban people, and/or self-identified political radicals. In other words, when the local bar announces a “trans/queer” dance night, they’re consciously or unconsciously communicating a lot more about who’s invited/expected to attend than just “non-straight”.
Also, it seems like the recent trend toward pairing “queer” with “trans” sends a message that the category queer doesn’t necessarily include the category trans, which makes queer problematic to use as an overall umbrella. (I think that pairing started on the west coast and moved to the east coast a couple years ago–anyone else know more about that history?)
The only plausible thing I can think of ispeople worrying that a cis man will tell his boss he’s becoming a woman and then apply for a job as a women’s locker room attendant. I’d assume that in the final bill there’ll be some sort of regulation for making sure this doesn’t happen while preserving the right of genuine trans women and men to serve as locker room attendants, etc for their true gender.
But who cares if the physics teacher’s changed gender over the summer? It’ll make for good conversation for a few days (and some interesting Wikipedia searches on the school computers), but SERIOUSLY.
I use it too…But I appear to be a femme gay man, and I see myself as a bi-lesbian in a big fuzzy body, and I dress in a lot of female clothing but I am not really a crossdresser and I have no plans to transition. MEANWHILE, my husband is a transman but I am about 5 inches taller than him, so everybody assumes I am the top in the relationship and I am NOT…
Queer seems to fit.
Forgot to say it, but……added a comment in the initial post due to your comment here. The first couple of times I listened, I was listening for transgender, and past the four minute mark in listening, I missed the “gender idenitity” phrase.
So, I added a note in the diary text last night to reflect what Joe/the HRC said, and you pointed out. Thanks!