I think you can stop right here:

The religious right is more organized

and has been for many, many years now.

This is the vital point, IMO

How much of a real win will it be for transgender community activists against HB 235 if they’re leaving the lobbying against HB 235 to the antitransgender sentiments of voters on the religious right? Leaving the lobbying against HB 235 to the religious right isn’t a pathway to getting a bill that includes housing, employment, and public accommodation protections based on gender identity passed next year, or in years to come.

Perfectly stated.  Everyone must understand that what they do or don’t do this month helps set the stage for the next legislative session.  If you don’t want to start off next year in a worse position than you did this year, you really need to scramble.  The session ends in 10 days.

How about a Catholic transwoman.

The legislator in question had received no letters from trans people lobbying against the passage of HB 235.

In the interest of full disclosure I should share with you that well over one hundred letters I wrote in opposition to HB235 were written from a Catholic perspective. So they may well have been perceived as coming from the “religious right.”
Here is an excerpt from one of those letters written to a Catholic lawmaker:

My religion teaches, through the doctrine espoused in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.” (CCC 1930)
“No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.” (CCC 1931)

So don’t second guess that because a letter comes from a Christian constituent that it doesn’t also come from a transwoman.
Just sayin…

Passing that bill will put transpeople in a worse postitionYou GL folks will be just fine since you’ve had civil rights coverage for a decade.

You’re not bothering to read what was written.I don’t care if you love or hate the bill.  The point of my comment was that if you don’t go about loving/hating the bill intelligently, you’re going to end up in a worse political situation than you began in January.

I’d love to know who is writing them.It would help to know who is writing the letters. I know you don’t want to put their names an email addresses out on the web. I’m just saying that with the names you can track them to organizations, neighborhoods, churches, and the like.
I think the letters are the intellectual property of the author so printing them in their entirety may be something you’d like to vet through some of our legal minds here.

How would it help to know who is writing those letters?As I see it, the obstacle you face isn’t the hardline anti-trans people writing those letters, it’s inertia in your community and the general non-familiarity of most voters with trans people.  I’m sure you can get a general idea of the nature of the opposition letters by speaking with your legislators, but that information won’t get your people in front of their legislators and educating their neighbors.  

There’s possibly more to the story in terms of the media coverage.  I know with the passage of Bill C-389 in Canada, there was virtually no interest whatsoever in getting trans perspectives or mentioning anything at all that trans people were doing or saying about trans rights.  Toward the end, we had even networked activists across the country, sent a joint letter out to media outlets large and small saying “we’d be happy to talk to you about this” and the response was negligible.  They were more than happy to trumpet Charles McVety claiming we were washroom predators as “the other side of the story,” but weren’t interested in getting the trans side of the story in the first place, period.  Part of that stems from a conservative swing in media ownership and operation up here.
That enabled this:

“The legislator in question had received no letters from trans people lobbying against the passage of HB 235.”

We had letter campaigns from before second reading happened (in other words, starting a year before the final vote happened), had visited our MPs — my partner and I visited ours a couple times and I kept in touch with him by email — and they were still making statements like “not one single trans person had written to us about this.”  Because they knew that there was so little media interest, they could brush us off and pretend we didn’t exist when they voted against our human rights.
I don’t know if this is what happened in Maryland, and in some way things were backwards because the community became opposed to the bill (and it was probably so distasteful to write in opposition to a trans bill that many didn’t write at all).  But it’s not always a one-sided deal, and we’re sometimes so disconnected from the discussion that putting in efforts enough to burn us out are still not enough to make us visible at all.

You missed the point.For or against the bill, trans Marylanders needed to contact their legislators and talked to them about HB 235. That so few did — either for or against HB 235 — left the arguments against the bill the legislators saw the most of were from the religious right.
And as I said in the piece above:

How much of a real win will it be for transgender community activists against HB 235 if they’re leaving the lobbying against HB 235 to the antitransgender sentiments of voters on the religious right? Leaving the lobbying against HB 235 to the religious right isn’t a pathway to getting a bill that includes housing, employment, and public accommodation protections based on gender identity passed next year, or in years to come.

And that should tell us something about what we transgender people, as a community, apparently believe in. And I would argue that at least within the online transgender community, what we as a community apparently believe in is armchair activism that is satisfied with believing that we know why we are oppressed and by whom — and little beyond that.
I’m saying we transgender people don’t appear interested enough in civil rights as a community to organize ourselves to at least engage in citizen lobbying. Instead, we show brick-and-mortar world disinterest.
And again, that’s an observation regarding transgender people who are for or are against HB 235 — neither camp of transgender community members appears to have done that much citizen lobbying.

As I said in the piece……those letters were mostly from people in some way affiliated with Grace Brethren Christian School.
I wouldn’t have said that if I didn’t have a source for that information.

Umm Laurel, .That’s a bigoted and white privilege filled statement to make that presumption that I (much less anyone opposing HB 235) am ‘less intelligent’ than you and not capable of coming to my decision to oppose this bill on a rational basis.

I’m wondering if we overestimate our sizeWe start with a figure, let’s say 10% of the population is GLBT. If we have a 1,000,000 citizens, one presumes there are 100,000 LGBT.
But we can’t work with that figure. Grassroots organizers know that a realistic assessment of how many we can really actively engage of any given constituency group is more in the 5% to 1% range (sorry, it’s true, of environmentalists, latinos, anyone…).
Then we are really realistically looking at being able to engage 1,000-5,000 people from a sample of 1,000,000.
And I really think our hopes of engaging non-LGBTs to do active lobbying are meager. In my experience, rare indeed is the non-LGBT who shows for a rally, event, canvass or phone bank. Show up for one of those, and the vast, overwhelming majority of participants are queer.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t say this to be a bummer or defeatist.
But to be realistic so we can better form strategies. We can certainly work on better involvement and engagement, and of course, always should. But we may always be outnumbered. So what do we do with that knowledge?
Personally, I think we can focus on mitigating the influence the regressive right has in the conversation.
(And in this specific case, the splintering of the T community does nothing to help. It mitigates their own numbers and freaks out non-Ts from taking a side in the internal T-fight. I want to be T supportive. But T #1 says I’m awful for supporting the bill. T #2 says I’m selfish for not doing so. Who am I, a cisgendered male, to say what’s best for that population? What to do?
Most will sit it out entirely.)

throwing the race card because i criticize your tactics?that’s pathetic.  

Mercedes, I can’t speak for Manitoba or Canada,but I can tell you that our local gay press, from the Blade and Metro Weekly to the Baltimore gay press, would not allow the story of pro-bill supporters flooding legislative offices with emails and phone calls go unreported.
That’s also a function of effective organizing in this community for years, both on gay and trans issues.
And not only does the gay press report on this, but the MSM often read the gay press. It’s how media campaigns work. Believe me, if all the pressure on Senator Miller was coming from an LGBT blog, it wouldn’t mean a thing. The Blade and Metro Weekly? Well, maybe, but once the Baltimore Sun picks up on it, then some voters might be reading this and my reputation may be damaged . . .
Not saying that at the end of the day a man with Miller’s power will care what anyone thinks, but there’s a hierarchy of impact that must be nurtured and mobilized. And that comes from years of developing an honest and reliable relationship with the media. I know this from the other side as well, having been married to a journalist.

It is opposition research.It has been helpful for me in the past. As I said with the names you can track them to organizations, neighborhoods, churches, and the like.
Then you can target those communities with education, political action, street theater, or whatever the particular situation seems to demand.  

I didn’t miss that.I read that. I was speaking generally about how such letters could be used to do opposition research.
For instance if a letter comes from “Dana LaRocca” the opponent can find out that “Dana LaRocca” is a transgender activist and a writer for an LGBT newspaper. That can mean a lot more than just knowing that I live in Baltimore and go to St. Ignatius and that I can quote scripture.  

Intentional messaging at every touch point, as they say in the marketing world.Because legislators pay little attention to trans issues during the course of any given session or year (and combine that with the almost complete lack of dialogue we have had with them on trans issues over the years), the time that we take in front of them (whether an email or letter crafted by TransMD, TransMenace or yourself) and the time they spend actually considering HB235 is a precious and rare opportunity.  To the extent that some are emailing to influence a NO vote, the objective has to be more than to simply kill the bill.  It has to be more calculated and attentive to the bigger picture than that.  And to understand the audience and use appropriate language and messaging.  Are we thanking them for their support (even of a flawed bill)?  Are we telling them we will follow up to request a meeting?  And on and on.  How do we gain or keep an ally?
Maybe that is too much “micro” to focus on now when the point of this article is that there just isn’t much out there already.  I personally sent emails through EQMD’s system, but I can’t recall exactly what those form emails said.
On another note, one freshman legislator, who voted no on SB116 (marriage) due to his supposed inability to take the temperature of his district on the matter in the short time he had been in office, said that no one contacted him either way about the issue.  But online, several gay people living in his district said they had written and called him and even attempted to get a meeting with him.  He lied only to justify his position.  Anyway.

We do (the entire LGBT)have a vested interest in dealing with the religious forces out there against all of our issues.  I think the alienating (calling them the oppressor etc.) of the LG part of the equation is very detrimental.  Those who are willing to give their time or money may just say:  ”Fine, I’ll just focus on my rights then.”  And I agree with the point above that if anyone is going to get out there and work this with the T, it’s going to be the LG.  While people may think Gay Inc. is evil, I have taken away the messaging from EQMD that your issues are my issues too and this has formed my mindset and gay identity.  It’s been our culture, set in part by the equal rights orgs.

How do I lobby?I don’t live in Maryland, but at other times, like when the federal ENDA, or something in my home state, comes up, I know I should be doing something–at least writing to my representative, senator, governor, etc. But I’m at a loss for what to say because I don’t have a personal story of discrimination to tell.
Of course, I know that other trans people have suffered discrimination, and I don’t mean to diminish that, or mock it, or brag. I just feel like, in order to write an effective letter to a legislator, I need a personal story that’s relevant to the bill being considered. If I told the story of my transition truthfully, it would sound like an argument that ENDA is unnecessary, so that story seems pretty useless to me as a lobbying tool. So, what should I write? How can I participate in lobbying for ENDA? I really want to; I just don’t know how.

When did “ask” become a noun?In what sense is “an ask” different from “a request”?

No argument with anything, Lisa, exceptthat we have done education for years, we’ve had those conversations. I’ve done it personally, EqMD had trans lobbyists and organizers doing it for years. We worked the comprehensive bill each year only to run up against Frosh, who was given a committee makeup by Miller that was easily manipulatible to kill a bill or easily shove it into the drawer.
That Frosh would have to rely on this unethical maneuver to get the bill away from his re-vamped committee is evidence that we have had those conversations and done the education. Clearly not enough to overcome the bathroom meme on the part of enough Democrats, but enough to get a strong House vote and be well positioned for the future.

We got bigger problems than intellectual property.The letters come from all over the state. That’s the problem.

It’s been for quite a while. I believeit developed in fund raising circles.

You’re a double minorityIt’s a fact that most major mainstream religions oppose both the gays and the trans folx. Maryland Catholic Conference, for example – http://www.mdcathcon.org/trans…

You’re absolutely right

And the non-trans Catholics are way more organized than youhttp://restore-dc-catholicism…. for example

Eek, I have to take issue with “most major mainstream religions”.If you want to say “many Christian denominations”, I wouldn’t disagree.  But there is a solid and growing number of Christian congregations and even denominations (Evangelical Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church) that do support LGBT people, not to mention 75% of non-hierarchy Catholics.  Outside of Christianity, the Unitarians and  Reform Jews (the largest sect in the USA) are rock-solid supporters.
What you say about the MD Catholic Conference, oh yes, no argument there.  The Catholic hierarchy is reliably anti-LGBT as are the Southern Baptists.  The United Methodists and Presbyterians have a ways to go yet, but they’re getting there.  Their central structures are anti-LGBT, but not their congregations.

So to your point from “The Ask”http://www.pamshouseblend.com/…

The asks.
One of the things that didn’t happen with HB 235 was transgender people making asks of the lesbian and gay LGBT caucus members prior to the bill being introduced. We didn’t tell them what we expected; we didn’t make asks or demands.
And partially that was because although the decision was made in November to remove public accommodations from the gender identity bill, the bulk of the transgender community didn’t become aware of that until the bill was submitted to committee in January. There was no buy into the removal from transgender community; the lack of transparency was a tactical mistake.

Since you went public with this statement, do you care to explain it? I mean, you suggest there was a decision in November to remove public accommodations. Who’s decision and how do you know?

We stand togetherThe entire community should stand up to bigotry…   If we don’t one day it will touch all of us…
In Maryland hundreds of people are working to end discrimination against TG people.  In the fight are CIS people, LGBQ people, labor, churches, elected officials and more.  Having been in the trenches with many of them I am awed and inspired by their continued desire to help get the right thing done.

I deal with fundraisers & 501(c) orgs staffers……and they use the term “ask” as a noun. I’m using their terminology in the way they use the term.

I often quote Bayard Rustin……on antigay sentiment, which I now interpret to include antitransgender sentiment.

“[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That’s our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment.”
–Bayard Rustin; From Montgomery to Stonewall (1986)

That’s one of the things I see as our job in LGBT community.

regarding the United Methodists and PresbyteriansI meant to say:
Their central structures are anti-LGBT, but not necessarily their congregations.

Jenna, we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.Whenever the exact date was, and I was out of the country from November until mid-December, having resigned from the board in October, so I don’t know (and Laura Hart has stated that it wasn’t mentioned at the December board meeting, her last), the fact is that Joseline made the decision because her committee chair forced her to do so. He gave her the choice to truncate the bill or let it die (and many bills die or are withdrawn) because there weren’t the votes on his committee.
EqMD eventually acquiesced to this decision, deciding that 2/3 was better than nothing, and nothing is what we had managed to obtain the past four years. Again, because of Senator Frosh, the man you’ve been praising this past week, the man who single-handedly killed the bill from 2007-10.
EqMD’s strategic blunder was not sharing this information before the bill dropped in late January. They didn’t notify me, you or anyone else for that matter. Why? I don’t know – you’ll have to ask. Probably because they thought it would be a distraction from marriage. That they didn’t even present this to members of the community for input was a major mistake, and I don’t think Morgan would disagree with that.
Finally, I would not put the burden for this on Morgan. The board has the ultimate responsibility for such major decisions. After all, deciding what legislation to pursue is clearly a board function.

Why is passing ENDA important to you?That is the question you need to answer when you write letters to your legislators.  You needn’t have been the target of discrimination to have perhaps seen it happen to friends, and to want to have legal recourse should it happen to you in the future.  Maybe it’s important to you that it pass because until it does, the government is senting a silent signal that it’s ok to discriminate against LGBT people.  Perhaps there are other reasons why passing ENDA or other bills is important to you.  Speak from the heart.  That’s what’s important.
Others may have other suggestions.

Thanks AutumnActually, I don’t believe “we’ve” discussed this ad nauseum.
In fact, the question is posed to Autumn, in response to a statement she made. However, I will accept your answer if you are seeking to respond for her. But if so, please answer the question.

Since you went public with this statement, do you care to explain it? I mean, you suggest there was a decision in November to remove public accommodations. Who’s decision and how do you know?

Congregations aren’t religionsShow me the positions of each denomination you name that affirm the dignity and equality of gay folx and trans folx, and takes steps to have them treated equally under law, and I’ll be wrong.
Til then, I stand by my statement – most mainstream religions oppose gay and trans folx.
I’m happy to be wrong – prove me wrong.

DataPlease look at this report from Pew C T –  http://religions.pewforum.org/…

unitariansAnd by this data, I mean to say, why should I care, if I was an elected official, what the Unitarians think, as a political force, when their numbers are so puny?

I’m not speaking for her.If this is a question you just want her to answer, then I apologize for queue jumping.
As for the answer, I posted it in the more recent blogpost comments section. Very inside politics that probably will bore most people to tears, but if you want the specifics . . .

That’s really unfairI don’t see what her race or socioeconomic position has to do with what is an objective assessment of the legislative politics. As I see it, it’s this:
If this bill goes down in spectacular defeat, it will be much harder to get a better bill in subsequent sessions. Politician will assume there is no support, even for a badly compromised bill.
If it passes, or at least is demonstrated to have support, that will move the ball down the field a little.
I don’t presume to know everything. Perhaps there is a scenario where no one demonstrates support for a weak Trans bill and that build momentum for a stronger trans bills. I don’t see how.  

show you?you can get a lot of information you seek here.  i don’t have right now to lay it all out for you.  but i wouldn’t have made those statements if i didn’t believe them to be true.  at a start, it’s been in the news quite a lot over the past several years about united church of christ, evangelical lutherans of america and the episcopal church’s pro-equality positions.  the reform jews haven’t been in the news because they’ve been so pro-equality for so fucking long.
if you were a legislator why should you care about what unitarians think?  maybe you wouldn’t, unless perhaps the more active citizens in your district were unitarians.
i get a feeling of hostility from your reply.  if i mis-read that, i apologize.  but you should know that i’m an atheist, so i’m not defending these religious organizations out of any sense of personal investment in them.  in fact a few years ago i formally renounced the church membership lingering from my childhood.  but i want to give credit where credit is due, and recognize that a) religion is very important to a lot of people, and b) “religious” does not equal “anti-LGBT bigot”.  far from it for any religious people and even some entire denominations and religions.
this is a big subject that i think should be pursued in a stand-alone diary (don’t want to thread jack too much).  until i or someone else gets around to writing that, you might want to check out my Allies of Faith series.  it is fairly new and not at all systematic or comprehensive, but it is a peek into the various experiences of straight pro-LGBT religious people.

That’s what they said to Joan of Arc

The Maryland Catholic Conferenceis more progressive than Equality Maryland.
Some of the progressive initiatives they championed last year were:
Laws that would prohibit landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants on the basis of that tenant’s source of income, establish protections for victims of domestic violence who live in rental housing, strengthen prohibitions against human trafficking, give tax credit to employers to hire welfare recipients, place limits on employers’ ability to utilize a job applicant’s credit history as a condition of employment, modernize the unemployment insurance system making it consistent with Federal standards, and expand to all workers protections that currently apply only to retail employees regarding use of leave to observe holy days of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
But aside from all of that they have a great deal of political clout in Marylsnd. The had a much greater influence during the marriage debate than NOM primarily among Democratic and progressive lawmakers. It is their stand on issues like the ones listed above that gave them that influence.

I value your perspective, yesBut I wanted her response, to a statement she made here. If she is so willing to offer it.

The board needs to go then, if EQMD is ever to credible to the trans community.If the “board has the ultimate responsibility for such major decisions,” then Morgan should have answered my questions honestly about the makeup of EQMD’s legislative committee. She said she would at the first workgroup meeting. Then on the second meeting she stonewalled.
That said David Lublin had already written to me saying that “membership in the Legislative Committee is not for distribution.”
What he didn’t know was that Morgan had already given me the key to the puzzle, just not as specific as I wanted.
But why should it matter you might ask?
It matters because they were making decisions about legislation that impacts my life and yours without any input from the transgender community. That’s why we do not want them at the table in the future. They simply can’t be trusted.

In terms of what you are seeking to find outIs the more critical question to you who made the decision to accept a compromise bill or who made the decision to not get input prior or later alert key people in the trans community?
I think the responsibility is with the Board Chair, to the extent there are failings.  I really tried to ask questions and listen carefully to learn what happened with the marriage bill (the non vote) and I didn’t hear anything about a Legislative Committee.  I heard about a small small handful of Board members (for EQMD’s part, that is).
I think EQMD is in push mode for HB235 and they won’t address the issues here until after the session.

Not sure how you are defining “more progressive”your list indicates a much wider portfolio, but it’s not really fair to suggest Equality Maryland should be championing tax credits for hiring welfare recipients, or opposing human trafficking. I mean, it’s nice idealistic notion they should. But there’s plenty on the LGBT plate.
To compare what a Catholic institution can accomplish with their resources to what our community…
Well, let’s initiate a mandatory attendance weekly meeting with a collection plate passed to every single LGBT in the state, and that might level the field of comparison.  

I want to know “why” more than “who.”What I wanted to find out was the “why” of the secrecy surrounding the level of involvement of the national organizations. You didn’t hear anything about the Legislative Committee because they didn’t want you to know the extent of decision making power that was given to HRC, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Freedom to Marry, and Gill Action.
Morgan had started to talk about the national involvement on a conference call on January 21 when she was interrupted loudly by Co-Chair of the Legislative Committee Davis Lublin who interrupted saying, “Morgan, Morgan, Morgan!  We really have agreed that we don’t want to get into this sort of what level of who is doing what….”
It is the secrecy that intrigues me more than the actual names. People aren’t secretive unless they have something to hide. And the secrecy fuels the conclusion that they are not to be trusted.  

That depend on who “we” signifies.

It doesn’t matter if it is fair. It is true.I wasn’t suggesting that Equality Maryland should be championing any of those issues Clark.
I was explaining why the Maryland Catholic Conference has powerful influence in the Maryland legislature.They support a lot of progressive causes and as such they have significant relationships with progressive lawmakers.
Those relationships are more important to lawmakers than the fleeting relationship with Equality Maryland over one or two issues.

Major I use this definition of data – Great in number, size, or extent: the major portion of the population.
Unitarians are very active god bless them but not major.
And you should know – I’m an atheist so I’m biased. Not saying you shouldn’t organize the faithful though.

I have no idea what you’re talking aboutBut if you prefer, then, you’ve got bigger problems than worrying about copyright issues.

You are correct in your assessment

Not hostile either So no worries. I get your point about the language.
Also I have 2 small kids so sometimes I am very short. This isn’t a full time jobby for me.

You’re absolutely right DanaOnly if you ignore all choice issues and LGBT issues. Oh and public school issues, as Mother Church love to stop innovation when it interferes with Catholic education.
As a gay woman, I’m not willing to make that leap of faith.
But I’d be interested to know what bills EqMD supports as part of coalition building.

A Flash of Insight- We Were All DefeatedMy apologies to all, as I have been off my game for about a year now, partially due to personal events, partially due to my work which has been more than emotionally onerous this year as well.
The manner and tactics used to defeat this bill are at least as important and probably more important than the content of the bill. Beyond that, the public perception of who was the engine behind its defeat is critically important, not just now, but in the future.
Whatever this act’s shortcomings, and I agree that those shortcomings are real and weighty, the bill’s defeat is read as a victory for the Right Wing Religious Extremists and as such lends more credence to any future opposition to measures taken on any minorities behalf that the Religious Extremists take issue with.
The Trans community is not seen as having killed the bill, the Radical Religionists have placed that paticular crown of laurels upon their own collective head. In the end, we have helped them to look increasingly unstoppable at a time that they are becoming even more strident and brazen, when candidates for the American Presidency are falling over themselves to look “more religiously bigoted than thou.”
Keep in mind a quote from the book “Does God Hate Women,” a quote brought to my mind again by a dear friend in the UK recently when she gave a talk on making common cause with these dangerous zealots on ANY issue:
These religious authorities and conservative clerics worship a wretchedly cruel unjust vindictive executioner of a God. They worship a God of 10-year-old boys (sic), a God of playground bullies, a God of rapists, of gangs, of pimps.
They worship – despite rhetoric about justice and compassion and agapé – a God who sides with the strong against the weak, a God who cheers for privilege and punishes egalitarianism. They worship a God who is a male and who gangs up with other males against women. They worship a thug.
No matter how we slice the pie or apportion blame, the Religious Radicals have come out of this as the only true victorious party.

The secrecy is silly

I can immediately identify one of the sources for the first letter, which cites to others with linkshttp://www.catholic.org/nation…
entitled:
“Exchanging the Truth of God for a Lie: Transgender Activists, Cultural Revolution”
There is a reference in there to an Australian human rights paper that both the writer and the reference writer twist into “23 genders,” when nearly all the references are to subcultures within the spectrum of gender identity, and terms applicable to them.
The article deserves a response, particularly since the writer, a Catholic deacon, does not get most of the facts correct, and then spins things out of control in Bill-Reilly-like “all spin zone” fashion.
The first letter is clearly from a Catholic, and I’m betting a reader of Deacon Keith Fournier’s essay at Catholic Online.

If it’s all about power . . . . . . then we are condemned to tyranny.
Why should an elected official care what a Unitarian/Universalist thinks?  Perhaps it’s because most U/Us strive to make the worlld a better place.  Unitarians have had a prominent place in the formation of the United States – Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian, and there were many Unitarians who were prominent in the abolitionist movement (and yes, some were even happy to bankroll John Brown’s insurrectionist escapades – so it’s not as if all Unitarians have always worked in a non-violent manner).
Power exercised without love is tyranny.  Only when exercised with love can power result in justice.
The mean-spiritedness of the religious right is not lost on me, and should not be lost on the legislators who get these letters.  Of course, some of them are clearly only confused by what they are getting from the pulpit, or from their religious resources – but the ignorance andnmean-spiritedness of those sources is undeniable.
Elected officials who base their votes on sticking their wet fingers in the air to see how the wind is blowing, make a mockery of the trust the electorage gives them in a republic.  If we wanted mob rule, we’d just do direct democracy without representation – in which case, de Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority” ends up rearing its ugly head – and any minority should fear that.
Why listen to what a Unitarian thinks?  If it makes sense, all you need to hear from is just one.

If it’s all about power . . . . . . then we are condemned to tyranny.
Why should an elected official care what a Unitarian/Universalist thinks?  Perhaps it’s because most U/Us strive to make the worlld a better place.  Unitarians have had a prominent place in the formation of the United States – Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian, and there were many Unitarians who were prominent in the abolitionist movement (and yes, some were even happy to bankroll John Brown’s insurrectionist escapades – so it’s not as if all Unitarians have always worked in a non-violent manner).
Power exercised without love is tyranny.  Only when exercised with love can power result in justice.
The mean-spiritedness of the religious right is not lost on me, and should not be lost on the legislators who get these letters.  Of course, some of them are clearly only confused by what they are getting from the pulpit, or from their religious resources – but the ignorance andnmean-spiritedness of those sources is undeniable.
Elected officials who base their votes on sticking their wet fingers in the air to see how the wind is blowing, make a mockery of the trust the electorage gives them in a republic.  If we wanted mob rule, we’d just do direct democracy without representation – in which case, de Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority” ends up rearing its ugly head – and any minority should fear that.
Why listen to what a Unitarian thinks?  If it makes sense, all you need to hear from is just one.

You’re exaggerating the influence of the Catholic conference, Dana.I’ve worked with Progressive Maryland, sit on the steering committee of Progressive Neighbors, and helped found the Progressive Working Group. We don’t consider the Catholic Conference our allies. We’re pleased when they’re on our side (and have worked with them on occasion), but spend most of our time on social issues trying to neutralize them. I spent a great deal of time fighting them last year on the BOAST bill, an attempt to get the state treasury to pay for religious schooling. They were allied with the orthodox Jewish community, which made the campaign especially interesting for me.
Bottom line is it would be great if they took the lead on economic issues as they have in the past, but they don’t. It would also be great if they spoke out forcefully against war and capital punishment. The only issues on which they expend serious capital are the social ones where they strenuously oppose us, though to be fair they were much more public on marriage than on the gender bill. Their current hated of trans people is a recent phenomenon, due more to Paul McHugh from Hopkins than to the church of Vatican II.
One other thing you will discover as you get politically involved is that progressive lawmakers may, on occasion, break bread with the CC, but hardly consider them allies. Not that they shouldn’t on those economic issues, and there is room for education and influence there that you can provide.

Some Talking PointsFalsehoods about Trans people
“It’s impossible to change the DNA”.
It happens all the time, during cell turnover, as we know now. As one example, those who have bone marrow transplants gradually become genetically the same as the donors. [1] Identity is not in the chromosomes.
“They will always have male DNA”
No such thing. 1 in 300 males don’t have the usual 46XY chromosomes most do. 1 in 450 have 47XXY, so if there was such a thing as “male DNA” would be half-man, half-woman. They’re not. Similarly some women have XY chromosomes, yet still bear children [2]
“Johns Hopkins stopped doing sex reassignments because of the harm it caused.”
No, the one surgeon they had left in the late 70′s and was not replaced because the surgery was no longer deemed “experimental” but of proven effectiveness. Since then, they have referred thousands of patients to external  surgeons, and continue to do so to this day, because the treatment works.
“gender identity disorder” is a mental illness”

No, and the American Psychiatric association recognises that it isn’t. It’s still in the diagnostic manuals pending re-classification as a congenital intersex condition – intersex conditions are when parts of the body are of one sex, other parts the other. It’s an anatomical not a psychiatric problem, a birth defect if you like. [3]
Truths about Trans people:
Trans and Intersexed people face enormous discrimination due to these and other misconceptions.
There has never been a case of laws protecting trans people being used as a defence by perverts in bathrooms, not once in 35 years, nor in the 41% of the USA covered by them.
Rates of sexual assault in restrooms actually drop when such laws are put in place. That’s why the National Organisation of Women and other Anti-Rape groups support them.
Among the key findings from “Injustice at Every Turn”, the recently completed survey of over 6500 Trans people in the USA:[4]

   * Respondents were nearly four times more likely to live in extreme poverty, with household income of less than $10,000.
   * Respondents were twice as likely to be unemployed compared to the population as a whole. Half of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or other mistreatment in the workplace, and one in four were fired because of their gender identity or expression.
   * While discrimination was pervasive for the entire sample, it was particularly pronounced for people of color. African-American transgender respondents fared far worse than all others in many areas studied.
   * Housing discrimination was also common. 19% reported being refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity or expression. One in five respondents experienced homelessness because of their gender identity or expression.
   * An astonishing 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide, compared to only 1.6% of the general population.
   * Discrimination in health care and poor health outcomes were frequently experienced by respondents. 19% reported being refused care due to bias against transgender or gender-nonconforming people, with this figure even higher for respondents of color.
   * Harassment by law enforcement was reported by 22% of respondents and nearly half were uncomfortable seeking police assistance.

[1] Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8 – Even a woman’s ovaries end up with the DNA of the male donor.
[2] From J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9

PATIENTS: A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

[3] From Government Policy concerning Transsexual People

Transsexualism … is not an orientation towards people of the same sex….transsexual people may be heterosexual, gay/lesbian or celibate.
It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else).

[4] Exective Summary available at http://transequality.org/PDFs/…

Equality Maryland is very much part of the progressive coalition. It has sat on the board of Progressive Maryland (though I don’t know the current status), and is a member of the Progressive Working Group.
That being said, the group focuses on LGBT issues only, because it has never had the resources to spread itself too thinly. But the connections mean that individuals will step up and help on other legislative campaigns, which I personally have done.
In the other direction, SEIU has helped greatly on marriage and the gender bill this year.

I have the same problemBut telling some one else’s story of discrimination is also of value. Its not as good as a first person story but it does tell your legislator why the issue is imprtant to you.

Its been in use by sales people for a very long time.

This is a good question,and Dana has asked it several times in the presence of several dozen people. Certainly that national blogger call was a stunning event, one which got tongues wagging throughout the blogosphere and donor community. No one had known who David Lublin was at that point, and they were rather stunned when they found out and the rift between the board and staff was exposed for the world to see.
There’s a bit too much conspiracy theory about the influence of national organizations on EqMD. I suggest you simply lay the blame where it always belongs with non-profits — with the board. They are the ones with the responsibility, and had they won they would have taken credit, and now that they’ve lost they should hold themselves accountable as well.
Laura, Mark and I left the board not because of the malign influence of any national organizations, but because of the dismissiveness of the board towards the trans community, a dismissiveness I, for one, could no longer ignore. And it became untenable because the board had changed so significantly over the previous 18 months, as I’ve mentioned earlier. Boards are rarely static entities, and when an organization loses over half its board members and then stacks itself with those of a certain persuasion, the game often changes. That was what happened last fall with EqMD, and the results are evident for everyone to see, whether you are a supporter of marriage equality, gender rights, or both.

A little known secret of non-profitsAccording to the board boot camp training I attended at last summer’s Equality Federation Summer Meeting, it is the law that non-profit board meetings are open to the public except for Executive sessions at the meetings. How can the make up of the legislative committee be considered secret when the public can just show up and see for themselves? Are they going to declare their whole board meeting and executive session?

The silly thing about this is that the composition is an open secret. So why bother and make a fool of yourself in front of the whole country, otoh, and a group of irate trans persons, including a reporter, on the other?

I guess you don’t.“We” could be journalists, bloggers, photographers, and the like.
Or “We” could be people who take a banana out of the produce section and eat it.
It’s OK if you don’t know what I’m talking about. It was just a simple question that I thought someone might know the answer to. You don’t have to take the offensive just because you don’t know the answer.

I am speaking from the perspective of a politicianNot my personal perspective. And I’m not sure politicians care what is right or what makes sense. That’s the problem.

Thanks Laura
I didn’t know that.  

The we is the LGBTI am really excited to see TransMaryland do the heavy lifting to pass a comprehensive bill.

OK, Dana, the $64,000 QuestionWhere do we go from here? We know what doesn’t work. What might? What are the pressure points?
The question has been asked about Frosch’s animosity – but not answered. Is it something personal – like Janice Raymond being jilted by a trans lesbian who wouldn’t put out for her?
Is there a connection with Liberty University, Regent University, the Assemblies of God, the Nazarene Church, all of whom appear on the CV’s of teachers at Grace Brethren Christian School.?
For that matter, can we start opening up a dialogue with the GBCS? Maybe they’re just misinformed, and if we can question the consensus, we can break up a case of Pluralistic Ignorance. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…
See http://aebrain.blogspot.com/20… for the theory behind what I do.
We could start by getting you elected… that means gaining support from some Heavies, SIEU etc. And spokes in the wheels of opponents.

From my very limited perspectiveThis last year or two, it seems like EQMD (probably because of Morgan’s influence?) has started building progressive coalitions like never before, with national groups I mean, like unions, the NAACP, etc.  Morgan spent alot of time on that One Nation (or whatever it was called) campaign with the march on Washington.  This thing:  http://www.onenationworkingtog…
I think that helped build a lot of alliances, ending up having the lesbian SEIU (was it?) head speaking at a function and developing a relationship with her.  I had never seen, from my limited vantage point, a union alliance before.  And it has paid off nicely, with the unions taking public stands on the marriage and gender bills.
I think Morgan was also an advocate of supporting their legislation.  I remember we received an email about a credit check law (which she got a lot of heat for because it was, in my opinion too, too ancillary), which EQMD was supporting as a “you scratch my back, i’ll scratch yours” type of thing, though they framed it as being important to the T community since they are more likely to experience financial issues and have this law impact their employment prospects.
I think prior to that Dan Furmansky focused mostly on specific Maryland progressive orgs that were more obvious allies.

Reading the lies and distortions in these letters is very informativeAnd it’s very valuable for the continuing fight in New York for GENDA.  Each of the points made in those letters can be refuted quite effectively.  I’ll be using them when I develop a letter for my legislators.
I think we’ve done enough agonizing over the events of the past few months and the debacle in Maryland and I want to start thinking about future fights, like the ones in Connecticut and New York.

The “One Nation” march was a total power exchange with the dominant socialist masters. That the “One Nation” march was affiliated with the Communist Party USA and was hardly an alliance that one might promote to the general public. Several socialist groups were involved also and one of the leaders, if I recall correctly, had moved laterally from the now discredited ACORN group. The march was on October 2.
Seeking grassroots appeal Morgan voiced her support on the radio with Ben Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP, Fred Mason, President of the Maryland and DC AFL-CIO, and Gerald Stansbury, President of the Anne Arundel County NAACP.
It was a good move to establish some “street cred” which Equality Maryland certainly lacks. But strategically it was a flop.
The speakers whose organizations had courted our involvement had nothing to say about our particular causes.
Mary Kay Henry, the President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), mentioned nothing about the LGBT struggle for equality. Ms. Henry is an out lesbian and was a special guest at Equality Maryland’s Annual Equality Maryland Gala along with both-sides-of-the-fence Governor O’Malley.
Ben Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP, went on and on about “family values” but failed to acknowledge that same sex families are denied justice. A week before he had been in Manhattan urging the LGBT community to join the march. He seemed to have forgotten about us when he got to the rostrum.
Other than a brief mention of our struggle by actor Victoria Rowell the only powerful voice for our cause was made by Darlene Nipper, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
I’d say the march was an exercise in masochism with a strong emphasis on total power exchange with the dominant socialist masters.
But then I was just a casual observer.

Still the liars and distorters voteso the real challenge isn’t so much in refuting them as it is in making them less visible.

OhI thought when you said Legislative Committee you meant a committee of and within EQMD.  I absolutely did hear about the involvement of national partners and that “team” (or whatever you want to call it) of decision-makers for SB116.  If you spoke with an LBGT Caucus delegate in the aftermath of the marriage bill, they were a bit more frank.  I thought that those “national partners” were just a factor for marriage and not for the GI bill.  I think they just showed up for marriage when they thought we actually had a shot (to be able to have some control) and then, just as fast as they were in, they were out.  I would never assume that they were involved in the same way or any meaningful way with HB235 – do you have reason to believe they were?  One of the groups, remember, was Freedom to Marry.
Regardless of this latest HB235 issue, the EQMD board and the operation of EQMD had issues.  It’s been a struggle for them to maintain or have in the first instance an engaged and talented board.  If you take away the T from the org, those issues will still remain because many of the issues don’t relate to the T.  I’d say it has to do with things like board leadership, board member selection, power dynamics, personalities, and participation by our community.
If you slay Morgan, I don’t think you solve your problem (and you lose an energizer-bunny/workhorse who has mentioned the T way way more than any other non-T EQMD leader I have ever seen).  The type of issues you have with Morgan, well, I’d suggest for your consideration that she is an equal opportunity offender.  That’s all I’ll say as to that!  Also, I’d guess the board (or whoever controls it) will have a rift or micro-manage someone that does not march to their tune whether it be Morgan or not.
One thing to consider is that the decision you are wondering about may not have happened at a board meeting.

YepAfter reading many of the comments, you can’t get away from the fact that this is in many more ways than not the same fight.  When you get into the actual fight – the “how we do it” – it is the same conversation (barring some details of course) that the LG has had and still has over marriage.  To not collaborate, while I certainly understand the temptation, is really not using all of our tools.

I think you’re bth rightWhat you both propose isn’t mutually exclusive.  I think Emelye is correct that myths need to be busted.  We all agree about that regarding the bathroom myth.  The same it true of the others.  Legislators and voters who have no knowledge of or experience with trans people will be persuaded by the myths if they are phrased convincingly and quoted by a PhD or a Rev.  You need to set the record straight in likewise trust-inducing style and delivery, with the addition of putting a real human face on it (not the caricature face the opposition will use).
But Dana is also correct in that the voices of the opposition need to be diluted by the voices of reason.
Just my opinion…

I like that:: “trust-inducing style and delivery.” Very excellent.That’s why I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to my Catholic lawmakers. About a third are Catholic.
They can’t typecast me as a “God hater” with a “gay agenda” if I come to them with the same tone as the Jesuits and nuns that taught them in high school. And in their hearts they still truly believe that church doctrine is infallible. They just don’t admit it to their liberal friends.
They’re in the closet that way.
So once I’ve got the hook I can talk about social justice. The quotes from my letters near the top of the page were from the Church’s teachings about social justice by the way.
Of course I believe what I am writing also. It isn’t a political ploy. I truly believe that these lawmakers will understand and appreciate my message when it is presented from the viewpoint of a shared doctrine.  

If you have a shared religious beliefwith a legislator, you certainly will have their ear in a way we atheists won’t.  That has got to be a very powerful connection, speaking up for equality to a Catholic legislator as a devout Catholic.  And not just that, but as a Catholic who knows her stuff too, not just a daydreaming pew-warmer.  :)

While I understand it can be effectiveI absolutely hate fighting religion using religion.  It presupposes that religion is relevant here and it’s not.  Yeah yeah yeah I get that it can be a persuasive thing – gays have been trying that one strategy for a while.  Personally, I don’t think it’s all that effective (because most often the conclusion is wow, you’re gay or trans, you must be perverting your religion just so you can justify your actions) and I think it can be very detrimental.  I went to the “vote” on SB116 and I was disturbed, literally disturbed, by the speach of one of the gay caucus members (Heather Mizeur).  It was a recanting of her Catholic upbringing, her struggle with her gay identity in light of that, her account of God telling her that she was ok and loved, her view that her religion instructs her to equality, and her love for all of her colleagues.  How on earth can we challenge the many many legislators who got up and spoke that their Church and religion were telling them that gay marriage was wrong when Heather gets up there and says that her religion tells her it’s right.  The response:  Ok, you vote your religion and I’ll vote mine.
I do recognize, though, that one message does not fit all.  We do need to have differing messages because you never know what will work on some.  For some, the “we’re people too” messaging works, for some, the “it’s a civil rights issue” messaging works, etc.  (I hate the “this is about love” messaging that Morgan seems to favor for marriage, but it probably works on some.)
On the other hand, I do think it is very important to convince certain people that there are many religions, that their are many versions of certain religions, that particular religious beliefs are personal and wide-ranging, and that there is a great tragedy if you impose your religion on others.  I wrote a long email to about 10 legislators, as a Jewish woman, explaining why, when they thought they were protecting their religion and the religious beliefs of their constituents by voting against gay marriage (and it was shocking how many got up there and said it was exactly that in PUBLIC), it actually was putting their religions and the religions of their constituents in great jeopardy because, after all, they were supporting a majority rule in that regard and their is no guarantee they will hold the majority later.  That probably fell flat but I tried!
This is why a combined effort does make sense on various levels, because these are the same discussions/challenges with same-sex marriage and we need every great brain in the house (L, G, B, T) coming up with solutions and strategies to overcome this all.

A little inspirational message that came to me today via emailAgents of Change
Over the past few weeks and months, we have seen destruction in our world of biblical proportions.  The loss of life, safety, and security is unfathomable, and there is no telling when it will cease.  People are struggling physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. What can be done to repair, and to prevent the destruction from continuing?
Everything – natural and unnatural – that has transpired points to one fundamental responsibility: Each one of us must take the steps necessary to eliminate hatred, poverty, disease, and all the negative aspects within ourselves first.
As my father and teacher Kabbalist Rav Berg says “People ask me, ‘Why are we here?’ We are here to complete the final step in the evolutionary process, the simple step that has eluded humanity for thousands of years: Treat everyone around you with human dignity.”
This is the single thing withholding the end to all forms of chaos. Treating each others with kindness and respect – regardless of their race, creed or color – is the only medicine that cures the disease of intolerance.
When we become conscious of our thoughts, words, and actions, change will be reflected in the world at large.
This week, strive to be an agent of change. See other people as yourself, and take initiative in sharing, reaching out and putting their needs before your own.

That’s not my fight.I’m not “fighting religion using religion.” I’m fighting for social justice using a shared belief system. I don’t repudiate my religion, I embrace it. There simply isn’t anything in Catholic doctrine that speaks against transgender people. So there is nothing to repudiate.
No doubt someone will come up with something from McHugh or a political statement from the USCCB but that isn’t doctrine.Spare me that. I am a serious theologian and I’m not going to engage people in hermeneutics on an LGBT blog unless more than several people want to do that. My guess is not.
Remember please that I am not addressing gay marriage to my Catholic legislators. I am addressing access to buses and libraries and lunch counters for transgender citizens. It’s just about justice.
 

Me too(Casual observer, I mean, and beyond that I’m just not too schooled on these types of things.)
Right, I can’t say really whether it was a pay off in terms of time and energy spent.  
Some people have criticized EQMD (Morgan) for not getting out there and spending more time hand-holding/courting rich white gay men who had been big donors or who could be big donors.  There was blow-back from that group I think.  From my perspective, you almost can’t win and there’s criticism at every turn.  That’s why I think they get a really tough skin and have the ability (or learn) to put your head down into the wind and keep on plugging, no matter what almost.  That mentality may have its downsides though and, who knows, could have been at play with SB235.  Again, I think what you are seeing with Morgan (and Dana B. and Laura Hart could have info or a perspective about these individuals that I do not have) is what you see across the board for her.  It’s either how she rolls or there are other things at play influencing her.  I’ve personally felt blown off by her, and I have money and brains and time LOL!  Note:  People (not me) railed on EQMD for lack of transparency (and community buy-in) with decision-making on SB116.
I actually feel mixed about transparency, if you can believe it!  It might be horrible for me to say, and maybe circumstances would change my view, but EQMD has so very little capacity that they have to operate in a way that deflects alot and is hyper focused.  So part of me does understand the head down mentality.  Speaking more in general or at least about SB116 there.
Anyway, not to open that gaping wound again!

True, there is that big distinction, I got carried away with my venting.I guess, and the letters above confirm this, that religious people are behind the opposition but they are not using religious doctrine to do so.  They are using other arguments.  Thanks for reminding me of that.  Though shared is this whole “what is the world turning to/you’re turning all that we know on its head” type of thing.
It is just about justice, and I agree there is a difference.

I am a Socialist, DanaYears as a banking attorney inspired that particular move. “Dominant Socialist Masters?”
Please.
There aren’t enough real Socialists in America to dominate a strecth limo.

Also sharedis the “you are infringing on our rights” by giving rights type of crazy argument.  And the “you’re sanctioning or giving special rights to ill people or people who choose their lifestyle” type argument.  And the same “slippery slope” argument.  

While it’s certainly easy to criticize Morganas the ED, it really misses the point. No doubt she will be the scapegoat, especially if HB 235 is lost as well. Batting zero for an organization that had been focusing on 2011 for years is not a good batting average.
For some needed context, the entire state legislature and Governor are paralyzed, and I’ve heard from a number of them that this has been the worst session in memory. The Senate President changes the rules to suit himself and Senator Frosh, a gross abuse of power. Considering the fiscal challenges we face, the increase in Democrats in the past election, including progressives, and the momentum going into session, this is truly an epic fail. We’re angry, the unions are angrier. There are no champions for women anymore, either, and lest we get complacent about LGBT issues, one need only look to our fellow progressives of the labor and women’s communities to realize how far one can fall from grace.
There does need to be an accounting after session, though there will be great resistance to doing so, and Morgan will be the easy target. The board, though, bears the ultimate responsibility, as do the national organizations that jumped into this with their eyes closed, and Senator Madaleno who led the charge, blinded by the increase in Senate progressives, oblivious to the fact that the votes weren’t there in the House nor was the money there for a prolonged and very expensive referendum campaign in the face of, at best, 51% polling.
I’m not holding my breath. And, as we have seen, the gay caucus gave its all for marriage equality, but very little for trans and gender non-conforming civil rights. Besides Morgan working her heart out along with Darrell the past month, Mary Washington’s testimony and Maggie McIntosh’s heartfelt apology, we’ve seen nothing. One of the board members has the most popular political blog in the state, and he’s blogged nothing on the gender successes and failures of the past month, after live-blogging every Senator and Delegate’s tics on marriage. It seems it’s appropriate for gay folks to speak publicly about their rights, but not for those of the rest of the community. Yes, they’re tired, demoralized and busy with the budget, but there’s a reason so many in the trans community feel let down.
As has been pointed out, the silver lining is the political awakening of a dozen or two trans persons who now intend to get involved. That can only help.

Zoe, unfortunately prosecuting a strong campaign for rights costs far more than $64K,which is why I’m not optimistic that TransMaryland or any other state organization will accomplish much for years.
Legislators must fear us, and the voters, more than they fear their leadership. Marriage failed, among other reasons, because a few delegates did fear their voters’ wrath.
As for Frosh, yes, it’s personal. I doubt the story is identical to that of Janice Raymond’s, but it’s personal, because once you’ve exhausted every possible reason, the one left must be correct, however unwilling one may be to believe it.
I don’t know about Liberty University . . ., though since the ADF was involved in Montgomery County and is associated with those people, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Getting elected means convincing those Heavies that they’re not getting the return on investment from their earlier endorsees, and they need to look elsewhere. It’s not easy to get them to break with the Incumbency Protection Racket.

Did you not notice that the Pope has condemned transsexuality?http://www.time.com/time/world…

I believe that then-Cardinal Ratzingerwrote an instruction to Bishops in 2000 to the effect that trans-people were not to be married by the Church nor were they permitted to make religious vows on the basis of their being “disordered”
As Dr Ratzinger was at the time the head of the Office for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, I believe that his instruction would constitute doctrine, though certainly not ex cathedra.

According to a source familiar with the text, the document affirms that the sex-change procedures do not change a person’s gender in the eyes of the Church. “The key point,” said the reported source “is that the transsexual surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was a male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female.” For this reason the Vatican organ instructs Bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says that Catholics who have undergone sex-change procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood, or enter religious life” (Catholic News Service, January 16, 2003).

I think this links to his remarkshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/779…  

Pope Benedict of Gender TheoryThe Holy Father, in his homily during the Inaugural Mass in St Peter’s Basilica, pointed out, with a very incisive expression, how the First World “is exporting its spiritual toxic waste” to Africa and other developing areas. One of these poisons is the so-called “gender theory”, which, heavily disguised, is starting to infiltrate associations, governments and even some ecclesial environments in the African continent, judging from what the Pontifical Council for the Family tells us.
The agents of various international institutions and organizations start from real problems, which must be dutifully resolved, such as the injustice and violence suffered by women, infant mortality, malnutrition and famine, problems related to housing and work. They propose solutions based on the values of equality, health and liberty: sacrosanct concepts, but rendered ambiguous by the new anthropological meanings that are given to them. For example, equality of people no longer just means equal dignity and access to fundamental human rights; but also the irrelevance of the natural differences between men and women, the uniformity of all individuals, as though they were sexually undifferentiated, and therefore the equality of all sexual orientations and behavior: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, polymorphous. Each individual has the right to freely practice (and change, should they wish) their choices in line with their drives, desires and preferences.
This ideology is spread by reproductive health centers, local educational meetings and international TV programs broadcast via satellite. Collaboration of African governments and local groups, including ecclesial groups, is sought, and these groups usually don’t realize the ethically unacceptable anthropological implications of this.
My intervention is intended as an invitation to be vigilant, an exhortation to offer careful instructions to priests, seminarians, religious, Caritas and other lay pastoral workers.
at http://www.vatican.va/news_ser…

Please do interpret for meI’m not a serious theologian, but it seems to me that the Pope doesn’t like any of us.  And although you may be right that the Bible says nothing of transsexuality or gender theory, I’m not sure that matters vis-a-vis political organizing.

Well…My source(s) told me it happened with House of Delegates committee members, Jenna, and what the committee members would accept as language for HB 235 to receive sufficent votes to have the bill come out of committee. The bill was submitted with public accommodation protections based on gender idenity by the sponsor, but that’s not how it ended up after discussions with committee members. If you want to know who to target in future years for lobbying and direct actions, the Democratic Delegates in the House Health and Government Operations Committee are who you want to target in years to come, minus the bill’s sponsor who fought for public accommodations and lost.
I also was told that the decision to strip public accommodation from HB 235 was made without input from EqMD. What I will say about my source(s) is that he/she/ze/they weren’t affiliated with EqMD — I’ve only spoken to one individual currently affiliated with EqMD on one occassion, and that was about the marriage equality bill.
As to my source(s), I can’t reveal him/her/hir/them.
I operate in three modes — as a blogger/commentater, as a new media reporter (doing original reporting with a visible bias/agenda), and as an community activist. I often have to separate the three roles.
The source(s) that you want me to reveal gave me the info on background. From the NYU Journalism Handbook for Students on explaining what background is:

“On background” is a kind of limited license to print what the source gives you without using the source’s name. But most veteran reporters will not use “on background” information until they can verify it with other sources. People try to go “on background” when their information is very sensitive, which is to say, the information is likely to cause a stir. “On background” means the source’s name does not appear in the story. In effect it confers anonymity on your source, but allows you to work with the information the source has provided. Again, it’s best to consult your professor in these situations.
“Off the record” restricts the reporter from using the information the source is about to deliver. The information is offered to explain or further a reporter’s understanding of a particular issue or event. (Various presidents have invited reporters to have dinner with the understanding that no information from this meeting can ever be published.) But if the reporter can confirm the information with another source who doesn’t insist on speaking off the record (whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background, or not for attribution) he can publish it.

We don’t follow those rules completely here at PHB. Talking about our journalism rules with Pam, we decided that we can sometimes use single source on some information we receive if we trust the one source we have, and the source would reasonably be expected to have the access necessary to actually be in the know. In that regard, we’re operating under rules for us as new media, not functioning under the more stringent rules of legacy media. But, I do use Pam as an editor-in-chief to help me make decisions on tough calls on whether a particular source is a trusted source with sufficient access, and whether we believe the individual is telling the truth. I’m not saying this happened on this occassion, but am letting you know the rules under which we operate here at PHB when it comes to using background information.
In my role as a new media reporter — the role I was in when I received the information on background — well, revealing the/those source(s) would be unethical. As much as I may want to reveal my sources sometimes, I bound by my word to not reveal sources that want confidentiality.

Not the PopeBut on the website of the Holy See:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu…
As we have mentioned above, present societies are influenced by sexual confusion. The theory of gender leads us to understand that sexual differences, that is, the fact of being a man or a woman, is secondary in the setting up of social ties and the emotional bonds entered into in marriage and that consequently have a role in the forming of a family. It favours and recognises sexual gender that does not depend on the masculine or feminine gender but on that which each one builds subjectively and that orients towards heterosexuality, homosexuality, transsexuality, etc. In that way one could speak of heterosexual and homosexual couples and families. In other words, sexual difference is replaced by difference in sexualities.

The McHugh Stuffhttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/peopl…
So this says: After years of study, the Vatican’s doctrinal
congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document
concluding that “sex-change” procedures do not change a person’s gender in the eyes of the church.

And Intersex too.That’s made clear in both his speech to the Roman Curia, and the Vatican Diplomatic Corps.
Intersexed people undermine the doctrine of the Theology of the Body, the foundation of the Vatican’s anti-gay stance. Hence we must be suppressed.

Dana L. is correct that the Bible, Hebrew or Christian, says nothing about transsexualism. The only comments are about eunuchs, a class that includes intersex males, and they’re spoken of with great honor.
It is also true the Torah condemns the bottom in male homosexual relations, but not the top, nor is any mention ever made of lesbians. That was promulgated maybe 18 centuries later, just because they didn’t want to appear sexist, I guess

Clueless

all sexual orientations and behavior: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, polymorphous.

As if transsexuality was a sexual orientation or behaviour. It’s not so much what they don’t know, it’s what they know that isn’t so.

You just proved my pointby using the term ‘race card’.  We African Americans consider that insulting by the way.

Okay, you played the African-American card.Happy now?

We need a link, Zoe!I just have got to read what the Pope has to say on intersex people — what you said he says just sounds so off the rails senseless, I’ve just got to read the original text.

LOL!Incidentally, I do believe that Monica went over the line with accusations of racism in this case.
Not that there aren’t issues of privilege involved in this case. Laurel’s comment does sort of bait the ” ___________ are angry and irrational” about the discrimination that is (and in this case, will be) perpetuated against them.
I just don’t think that Laurel’s comment carried explicit or implicit racism with it.

I don’t put the “One Nation” march mistake on Morgan.I was criticizing EQMD’s involvement with “One Nation” march. It wasn’t directed at Morgan. That’s not to say that I don’t have serious criticisms of her leadership. I do. But if you saw my comment about the march as criticism of her I must have worded it incorrectly. I don’t know who made that decision.

If it is not ex catedra it is just one man’s opinion.
In other words it isn’t doctrine.

I wasn’t responding to you but to Lisawho had made the general comment that it is easy for people to criticize Morgan. I took her to mean that others (besides you) find it easy, as EDs make good targets for criticism and frustration.

My bad.

If it’s not public it can’t be doctrine.I have heard that trans folk can’t become priests or nuns. But I don’t know anything about the document you mention except that it is very popular on the internet.
That said, if such a document existed and it was determined to be doctrine it would mean that the church would be saying that gender is immutable. That’s not something I would agree with of course. It would not follow though that it would mean that such people should be discriminated against or denied civil rights or even denied communion. From what you are posting here it is only saying that they can’t have their Baptismal records changed, get married in the Catholic church, or become a priest or a nun.
My guess is that I’m likely the only person on this thread who has seriously considered becoming a priest or a nun. So I’m kind of at a loss as to why that particular opinion would matter to anyone.
Obviously the document isn’t doctrine because without it being disseminated to the laity it can’t possibly be followed. But lets not let common sense get in the way of this discussion and pretend that it actually was (or becomes) doctrine. Will the laity be required to believe it?
No.
Pope Paul VI wrote in “Dignitatia Humanae, the Declaration of Religious Freedom (which most certainly is doctrine) that:

“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.” (emphasis mine)

This is taught in the Catechism also but I have no desire to quote every source of similar doctrine. The point is that outside of the Profession of Faith there is precious little that Catholics are “required” to believe. The document you describe obviously doesn’t say that transgender people are sinners.
Whatever the document means it doesn’t mean much.  

Something doesn’t have to be doctrineto influence the opinions of Catholic people.  As long as the non-doctrine statement or opinion bolsters or at least doesn’t challenge people’s biases, they often won’t question it and will use it (probably unconsciously) to harden their bias.  
This isn’t a Catholic thing, please don’t mistake what I’m saying as singling out Catholics.  This is a human intellectual laziness or herd mentality thing.  But since we’re talking about Catholic doctrine I put it in the Catholic context.  If a statement bolsters someone’s prexisting bias, do they bother to determine whether it is doctrine?  Bet you dollars to donuts that not a lot do.  Most people aren’t like you – they didn’t contemplate the priesthood and so don’t examine their religion so perspicaciously.

Where do you disagree with the statement?
The document you copy from is well over 10,000 words (23 pages)and there is a whole lot in it that I would argue with the priest that wrote it if I had a chance. But the 120 words her aren’t really very inflammatory.
Again, these words are not doctrine. They are the words of a priest encouraging young people to enter the world committed to Catholic principle. It is a pep talk for World Youth Day. Let’s not put it on the same level as doctrine.

Where do you disagree with the statement?
The document you copy from is well over 10,000 words (23 pages)and there is a whole lot in it that I would argue with the priest that wrote it if I had a chance. But the 120 words her aren’t really very inflammatory.
Again, these words are not doctrine. They are the words of a priest encouraging young people to enter the world committed to Catholic principle. It is a pep talk for World Youth Day. Let’s not put it on the same level as doctrine.

Which isn’t to say, Danathat you shouldn’t point out to people what is and isn’t doctrine.  Of course you should, especially to people treating on non-doctrine as doctrine.  It’s great to force them to be intellectually honest.  But you’re not going to have that conversation with most Catholics, unfortunately, and so bigoted non-doctrine statements are going continue to be a very big problem because of the negative perceptions and air of hostility they produce.

Everyone likes us. It’s settled.Donna Plamondon mentioned the biblical reference to eunuchs in her testimony at the House hearings.
The Koran doesn’t condemn transsexuals either.
Heck, everybody accepts us. We are just plain lovable. So why is it so hard to get a common sense law passed?

The Right Wing Can Walk and Chew Gum at the same timeIdentity politics have harmed every one on the left.
That includes TS/TG people.  It often seems as no one wants to fight for any cause other than their own.
So labor does its own thing, feminists do their own thing, gays and lesbians do their own thing.  TS/TG folks do their own thing.
Tomorrow is the anniversary of the murder of Dr. King.  He wasn’t in Memphis on a specifically Civil Rights mission, he was there in support of the striking sanitation workers.  The last year or so he spoke out against the war in Vietnam.
Now people are telling us the struggle for LGBT/T Civil rights isn’t the same as the struggle for African American Civil Rights.
I go to labor rallies, I go to anti-war rallies and I go to LGBT/T rallies too.
Perhaps rather than engaging in circular firing squads and blame games it is time to ally with other movements outside the LGBt/T  

I think it’s important to realize……that the reason “Gay, Incorporated” does not play well with other civil rights groups is that Gay, Incorporated is pretty much exclusively by and for upper-class white cisgender men. They have a tremendous vested interest in dissociating themselves from the true civil rights movement and instead adopting an assimilationist approach which leverages their own massive social privilege to reclaim the status they are “rightfully entitled to” to while stabbing the rest of us in the back and leaving our corpses behind.

In other words,“Gay, Incorporated” has little interest in real civil rights progress, just in defending the “right” of rich white cisgays to take their place among the ruling overclass.

I don’t call then Gay IncFor one thing I might just want to work with them.
But there is something else that Transgender Inc is just as guilty of and that is tending to be by and for the desirable marketing demographic TS/TG people.
ENDA is great.  It will help lawyers and engineers stay lawyers and engineers.
But it doesn’t do much for people who were deprive of an education because of their race and/or class.  Or who were bullied out of school.
We need a new War on Poverty for that.
Or for those who have jobs that do not pay a living wage or offer benefits.  What good is it if both you and the cis-sex/gender person next to you are kept to 32 hours at 10 bucks an hour and can’t afford housing food and transportation.
Equality in slavery isn’t exactly my dream of utopia.

“If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.” (Che)

Your wish is my command.Want the original Italian, or the official Vatican translation (from their website)?
Anyway links to both:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…

(The Church) must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood.
If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work.

To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism. Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.

Hence the US Conclave of Catholic Bishops no longer being neutral on a Gay-only ENDA, but now hostile to one that protects TS and IS people too.
Text of the USCCB letter at http://www.americamagazine.org…

In addition to ENDA’s protection of same-sex conduct, its threat to religious liberty, and its contribution to the cause of same-sex “marriage,” there are other obstacles to its passage. The bill’s treatment of “gender identity,” which was not in the 2007 bill, would have an adverse effect on privacy and associational rights of others.

They admit it. It’s not about the “Religious Liberty” to persecute. It’s not about conduct they consider immoral. It’s not even about same-sex marriage. There is no Religious basis here.
They are against legal rights for trans and intersexed people on the grounds of “privacy” and “freedom of association”. That’s all. Exactly the same grounds that were used to justify segregation, separate facilities for “Whites” and “Coloreds”, or in Suid Afrika, “Blanks” and “Nie Blanks”.
   In 1955 he (Bishop Russel) issued a pastoral denouncing segregation as “morally wrong and sinful.” — From The Hottest Places in Hell: The Catholic Church and Civil Rights in Selma, Alabama, 1937-1965 PhD Thesis by G.N.Hite
In 2010… it appears the Catholic Bishops would instead argue that desegregation “would have an adverse effect on privacy and associational rights of others.”

Except that we have no evidence that Transsexuality existsNot the way the Vatican has defined it, based on their resident expert at the time, Dr Paul McHugh’s expert advice.

The Vatican text defines transsexualism as a psychic disorder of those whose genetic makeup and physical characteristics are unambiguously of one sex but who feel that they belong to the opposite sex.

We’ve never found a Transsexual person whose neuro-anatomy was that of their apparent sex. All of them have physical characteristics, actual anatomical differences, that are at variance with their appearance. None, not one, are “unambiguously of one sex”. This is visible in PET and CAT scans, and in autopsies.
I think “Transsexualism” as the Vatican defines it may exist, but if so, they’d be <0.1% or we would have found one by now.

It is presumed to arise from the Magesterium of the Church.

No average catholic cares about thisIf the Pope says it, it’s true. Think of your audience.

I don’t actually care about any of this – reallyMy point is that it would be easy to show the church doesn’t like transsexuality based on things the church has said. And see how easy it is to get you off message? Talking about what is and isn’t doctrine? Who is the average voter going to believe? You – or their priest? These argument are red herrings.
I’m really looking forward to seeing you and TransMaryland in action to enact a comprehensive bill.

Yey! Rainbows and UnicornsDana L. – if you email me, we can discuss this further. I can tell you how the committee received that testimony. I’m bugbrennan on gmail.

It trickles down to official state-level statements and up to the U.N.Here is the 2006 statement (pdf) from the Washington State Catholic Conference dealing with Referendum 65.  Emphasis added.

…This measure seeks to repeal legislation (HB 2661) that adds “sexual orientation” to the state’s law against discrimination in employment, housing, credit, insurance and certain contracts.
Although we support protections like those in HB 2661 for all people, we opposed this legislation prior to its passage by the Legislature.  The reasons for our opposition are twofold.  First, the measure contained an overly broad definition of “sexual orientation” that went beyond orientation to include various types of sexual behavior. [snip]
…As a result we will continue to oppose legal definitions of sexual orientation that degrade the meaning and dignity of human sexuality…

What they’re referring to with “various types of sexual behavior” is the gender identity and expression part of the definition of sexual orientation in the bill.  Here is the definition of sexual orientation used in HB 2661:  

“Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity.  As used in this definition, “gender expression or identity” means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether ot not that gender identity,  self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associates with the sex assigned to that person at birth.

And now for the UN part:  Last year, the UN was debating whether to restore “sexual orientation” which a committee had removed from the Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions.  The Holy See (a non-voting representative of the Roman Catholic Church with Permanent Observer status at the UN) stood shoulder to shoulder with the bigoted African, Arab and Islamic groups in claiming that “sexual orientation” should not be restored to the Resolution (below referred to “adopted resolution”).

The original and inalienable right to life of all persons is clearly recognized in international instruments. …However…the introduction into such a resolution of categories like sexual orientation and gender identity, which find no clear and agreed upon definition in international law, can give rise to serious uncertainty in the law as well as undermine the ability of States to enter into and enforce new and existing human rights standards, thus undermining these standards instead of reinforcing them.
My delegation therefore maintains that the implementation of this resolution is the sovereign responsibility of each State in conformity with all human rights and  fundamental freedoms, and the significance of and full respect for religious, ethical and cultural values.
For this reason my delegation takes this opportunity to affirm that the adopted resolution should focus on protecting persons and not be clouded by undefined categories.

Yet you stated..that the decision was made in November. The election results were still yet uncertified when such  decision was made, and if made by Del. Pena-Melnyk after she submitted it and then was rebuffed, its seems she had one helluva busy November.
Sorry Autumn, this “story” you are representing on behalf of your source is laughable, if you are still holding onto the November meme.
So, without revealing your source, do you care to stand behind your earlier statement, or wish to amend your explanation just given?
My question was never who I want to target in the future, I have a good idea of that already, hence this line of questioning. I consider you a “new media reporter” in reference to my request and therefore not one at which I place responsibility, yet not above culpability, should you be willingly and knowingly misleading the readers here with inaccurate statements.

Giving Frosh the Cover he NeedsTo those that seek to see HB 235 die and it may, I hope you are willing to take full responsibility for all of those in Maryland that will be denied jobs, housing and extension of credit.  Everyone knows the bill is not what we all wanted, but civil rights come at incremental steps, we may not like it, but that is the way it is.
Your actions this session is giving Frosh yet another convenient excuse to not move this bill, he’s now saying to anyone that will listen, “hey, I got calls from the trans community and they don’t want the bill”  Great job, you gave the man that has held this bill up for years because he doesn’t care about the trans community, the excuse of a lifetime.  He can now say, “I was for this bill, promised to move it through my committee, but the bill was assigned to Rules and many in the trans community didn’t want the bill”  Great, now he’s done with the issue until 2015 at the earliest.  He gets to run in his next election as a supporter of the bill that died in the senate, but wasn’t his fault this time.  Whoever or what group of folks that came up with that strategy need to be in the idiots hall of fame.
We have so many vocal out of state folks and/or people who just sit at their computers and spew venom and hate.  The things I’ve seen written here proves to me that people like Dana LaRoche simply likes reading her own posts, she has no idea how anything in the state of Maryland works.  You can thank her among many, for those in the trans community in Maryland who will go without housing, who lose their jobs and who have difficulty getting a car loan on her boneheaded decision to vocally oppose the bill.  
As folks are excited about EDNA, HB 235 goes further with housing (shelters) and the extension of credit, things everyone needs to live in our society.  Yes, we need public accommodations, but that bill just wasn’t going anywhere.  
Good luck finding a lead sponsor for the bill after this session ends.  Everyone in Annapolis knows how Del. Pena-Melnyk was treated by some in the trans community.  She was told she was no better than a flea, that she sold out the community and doesn’t care about them.  Del. Pena-Melnyk has a heart the size of Texas, it really hurt her feelings and the threats were so bad one day that she had to call for a police escort to her car.  But the very next day, there she is again, trying to convince her colleagues that supporting this bill is the right thing to do.  She is the best friend the trans community could have  had in Annapolis and some of you made her feel like dirt.  
You have to be some kind of retarded to know that the Delegate’s committee chair told her to truncate her bill, but turn around and blame Morgan, EQMD and their board for PA not being in the bill.  Yes, communication should have been given to the trans community and that is a mistake that everyone acknowledges, but some seem unwilling to move forward from it.  We can’t get in a time machine and travel back.  I’m really starting to think that no matter what EQMD did, it’s going to get criticized by some in the trans community.  If EQMD, after hearing from the delegate that the bill was going in without PA, choose to say “all or nothing” it would be getting attacked for not trying to get some protections for the trans community.  At the end of the day, EQMD didn’t have any input or say in the chair’s directive to his committee member.  EQMD was merely informed that this is the way it is going to be and in an effort to respect the privacy of the committee structure, did not disclose all of the information regarding the move away from PA.  
EQMD, Morgan and it’s board do not draft legislation nor have a vote on any committee, sub-committee or the floor of either chamber.  They work closely with our elected officials, but they don’t have final say on anything, the process is dictated to everyone, only the electeds get an actual say.  
Yes, I’m frustrated reading these posts.  I’ve been keeping up with what is really happening in Annapolis and the fantasy-land explanations here do a disservice to getting legislation passed that will help the community.  If you think having no bill is better than having laws on the books protecting transgendered folks in employment, housing and credit, then I just think you are not reasonable or grounded in reality.

Stop Repeating (In)Equality Maryland Agitprop

As folks are excited about EDNA, HB 235 goes further with housing (shelters) and the extension of credit, things everyone needs to live in our society.  Yes, we need public accommodations, but that bill just wasn’t going anywhere.  

Regardless of one’s position on the bill, the above is a lie. HB 235 does not cover shelters, which are legally classified as public accommodations. Housing protection only applies to permanent residences, i.e. apartments and houses.

Yes, we need public accommodations, but that bill just wasn’t going anywhere.  

Neither you nor any other pro-235 debater has offered even a  single shred of credible evidence that there as any actual need to remove public accommodations language. The only thing that’s ever been brought up is vague and unspecific claims that it was supposed to avert “bathroom bill” rhetoric by opponents. That is a ludicrously naive argument because it was always obvious that the other side would wave that bloody shirt out regardless of the actual content of the bill, and it is also a dishonest argument because it supports carving out a narrow exception for public restrooms like ENDA does, NOT dropping public accomodations entirely.

If you think having no bill is better than having laws on the books protecting transgendered folks in employment, housing and credit, then I just think you are not reasonable or grounded in reality.

The set of choices available to us is not 235 or nothing. The option set is settle for 235 this year and give up progress on trans rights for the next ten years, or reject 235 and continue fighting for a comprehensive trans bill next year.

You’re not bitter are you?

You’re not bitter are you?

Dana,you should find a way to stop double-posting. It happens a lot from your keyboard

You’re rightIt’s been happening since I started using Firefox 4.0

Why do you continue the practice of disinformation?What is “vague and non-specific” about the sponsor saying she lobbied her colleagues who told her they would not support the bill with PA. Her chair told her to strip it or kill it. There were other witnesses to these conversations.
That is how politics works, at least in Maryland. If you’re looking for a smoking gun in writing you will probably not find it, because most of these sessions are held orally and not via email or Facebook.
Yes, it is obvious to everyone that the opposition would shout “bathrooms” regardless. I know this because I’ve worked on this legislation for five years in Annapolis and three years, plus another three years in court, in my county. But just because I know it, that does not mean the delegates on that committee know it, or would care, either way.
And, yes, in 2009 we offered to carve out bathrooms from PA as a last ditch effort to save the bill and Frosh killed it anyway. One benefit of this year’s experience has been to show the Senators where the real problem lies, and I imagine at least some will take this into account when future leadership decisions are made.
Given that you have no idea about the political landscape in Maryland, you cannot predict what will happen either next year or in ten years. I sincerely hope that next year this bill is either completed by adding PA to the code, or a comprehensive bill introduced, but it will take a lot of work between next week and next January to get that accomplished.

The beta? What are you, one of those early adopters who wait in line for the new iPhone, the way some people line up for Springsteen tickets?

Firefox 4.0 has been out of beta for a couple of weeks now.Although that release is still buggy, I suspect Dana’s (double posting) issues are due to impatience.

Interesting Post  It’s funny you claim that people on here don’t understand MD politics when that seems to be the biggest problem with EQMD. The laughable assertion they are making about the marriage bill being tabled so it can come up next year just shows they have no clue about MD politics. The Blade did an article after that brillant move and the president of the SEIU criticized it and said that means the bill won’t have a chance until 2015. I’m not sure how EQMD can claim one thing on this bill and another on the marriage bill. This is where they lose crediability.  

Nope. I am very patient.
I’ve had other problems with 4.0 too so I returned to the previous version. We’ll see what happens.

QuestionWhat do you mean by “One benefit of this year’s experience has been to show the Senators where the real problem lies”?

No, it isn’t.That is exactly what politics is about. Most times you really have no idea what’s happening, there are so many cross-currents through which you must wade to make sense of things.
That decision on marriage was not EqMD’s call, but since they are the state advocacy organization and the advocacy face of the bill they have a responsibility to speak to the issue.
There is also an ongoing debate as to whether or not to pull any bill when the votes appear not to be there. This is not simply a civil rights issue, but a democratic process issue. As has been pointed out, if the votes had been firm, and the bill would have lost by a single vote, they may very well have held it. But once it was clear to the Whips that that was the case, those on shaky ground started bailing, and it could have turned into a rout. That is what you don’t want, so you pull the bill from the floor.
Personally, I believe the bill could possibly pass next year, but I would wait for 2015 when the voters have firmed up to a solid 55+% of support on a consistent basis. That’s a referendum that can be won, and I don’t believe we can win a referendum next year. Emotions are also still very raw, so it would be foolish to make any real predictions right now anyway. One of the advantages of an annual 90 day session is that people get 270 days to cool off.

Not speaking for Dana,but from an outside perspective I think it’s now clear that in the Senate the problem lies with a few legislators who have acted less than honorably.  Frosh, in a word.

I agree with waiting until we have solid support.I agree with waiting until we have solid support.
Of course we need to be educating the public and befriending the legislators while we wait.
None of us are going to trust EQMD to act in good faith though. We need to do this among ourselves.  

UhIf the marriage vote would have been held, guess what, we’d absolutely be waiting for a chance in 2015 at the earliest.  It was a lose-lose and an attempt to salvage the best possible situation out of what was clear at the 11th hour – we lost.  No one seems to want to accept that.  We tried, we failed.
EQMD does lose a bit of credibility in how they spin things, sure.  But, guess what, welcome to the modern world, where everyone spins things.  Every group.  It’s a necessary evil.  They’re not your best friend, they’re a political advocacy group with an audience of more than you and a purpose beyond satisfying you.

I didn’t realize that abuot 2009

Already no double posting since roll back to previous version…So that looks like it’s working as a solution. =)

It’s Makes No Difference  I’d rather have taken our chances. We’re screwed either way. I’d rather see who actually had our back and who was going to vote against us so we know who to target. It pisses me off because my husband and I have been together 23 years. I don’t want to wait another 4 years when we don’t even know who was stabbing us in the back.
 If you believe this has any chance in the next few years I have a bridge to sell you. Even if Busch does keep his promise to revisit it next year Miller will never let it see the light of day because the House refused to vote on it this year. But you can be assured EQMD will be putting out the e-mails asking for money saying we have a good chance to pass this next year.

Never once……in the entire country, not even in  ”super LGBT friendly” Massachusetts, have we EVER gotten full trans rights in less than ten years after accepting an incomplete bill. Are you seriously claiming that Maryland is so LGBT-unfriendly that we can’t even risk trying for comprehensive protection this year, but at the same time, yet at the same time so LGBT-friendly that it will be the first state EVER to promptly “upgrade” partial protection to comprehensive?
Your argument is self-contradictory.

Yes, sure, you can rather, but you’re just you.Many others (including me) would not have rathered.  And those in charge – the LGBT Caucus, House Leadership, EQMD, “national partners” – would not have rathered and they know the scene better than us (presumably).  Like I said, I don’t think there is an ideal.  We lost.  It’s a horrible losing situation where you, with a partner of 23 years, have to wait for an unknown time to get married.  If we had the vote, we’d be out at least until 2015.  Legislators and the public would have considered it resolved and people would lose their minds if it came back up again.  They were losing their minds that we were using valuable pressure time on “special rights of a few” anyway.  Then we lose and say oh wait gay activists and self gays want you to try again?  We still may be out until 2015, but the idea is that there’s a chance we can make something happen sooner.  And the idea is that we don’t hang somewhat ambivalent but on board for the win legislators out to dry – look how revengeful and pissed Miller is for being hung out to dry – when the bill is going down anyway, so that we still can attempt to get them solidified with us.
By the way, if the House voted and voted it down (which everyone agrees was a 100% certainty), you think Miller would have then said oh ok fine?  What he is pissed about is that the Senate wasted time on a bill that was a loser in the House and to the detriment of the rest of the agenda of the Dems.  
We know who was stabbing us in the back already.  It’s no secret.  Call EQMD or an LGBT Caucus member, or listen to the recording of the debate in the House, read all of the accountings in public newspapers and online, and there’s no mystery whatsoever.
What do you want EQMD to do?  Put out a notice saying “Don’t send money, we lost and this ain’t happening for a many years, send money then.”  As Dana Beyer and others have said, it takes years and years to build relationships and support and cultivate other changes to get a marriage bill passed.  That takes major money and, while you don’t like EQMD asking for it, our community gives a pittance and has not paid what it takes to ensure rights.  It’s just the reality.  A $150 every other year donor for EQMD is a big money bags.
We’re on the same team here.  It’s frustrating us both and we both want the same result.

You’re drawing historical lessons from a historythat is no longer than 18 years.
The first state comprehensive bill passed in 1993. We got a spate of bills passed in the early aughts, and since 2007 nothing.
I know the situations in NY, MA and MD are terrible, in that there were opportunities for comprehensive bills in the past, but there was no effective advocacy to accomplish it. Legislators don’t simply do the right thing because it’s the right thing.
Speaking only for myself in MD, I was still so afraid to come out in 1999 when the inclusive AD bill was introduced. Had I the courage, I would have fought to keep the GI provisions in then. My fear was based on the climate I felt abroad in the land, which inhibited me from transitioning and probably inhibited most legislators from giving inclusion a fair chance. Remember that the main reason the bill had so much traction was that then-Governor Glendening had had a gay brother who had died of AIDS. Getting a sexual orientation-only bill was no slam dunk, either.
Also, Joe Vallario, who was responsible for stripping GI back in 1999, voted for this bill last month. And Maggie McIntosh, who came out to push the bill in 2000, apologized for her willingness to pass the exclusive bill just last weekend. Is that good enough for those who’ve suffered in the interim? No. But it’s how the system works. And as has been said many times here, if you want something from your government, you’ve got to go out and ask for it. If HB 235 passes, maybe more trans people will feel comfortable being out and making that ask, and can ally with gender non-conforming gay and straight people and increase the pressure going forward.
Do I believe HB 235 could be amended next year? Yes. Is it likely? No, because that’s the way the Assembly cycle works on social issues. But the work has got to start, and we’d better be working together because there are way too few of us to work apart.