SPAM

I don’t understandI don’t understand why a new organization was considered necessary when there is already at least one already in place whose mission is the support and protection of the trans community.  Why this seeming duplication of effort?  I realize there have already been charges of the existing trans community organization being co-opted by people from the cis LGB community, as punishment for not going along with HB235 or perhaps as a way to gain more control over the message (since marriage equality is supposed to be job 1, all the time).  I have yet to hear any answers to these charges, however.  Please, Sharon Brackett, Dana Beyer M.D., Donna Cartwright, Caroline Temmermand and Alex Hickcox, let us know why you think this organization is necessary and why we should support it?

because…They aren’t part of the insider(sOUT) group.   There are three existing groups, TransMaryland, Trans United,  and MTA. None are tied to http://gayilluminati.com. If you’re not GAYinc approved, you don’t exist.

thatand Autumn Sandeen isn’t on any of the existing groups board.

I don’t think this is a duplication of effort, and here’s why:As far as I can tell, none of the other MD-based trans organizations are 501(c)4s.  They’re either 501(c)3s or not even registered non-profits.  Only Equality Maryland and Gender Rights Maryland have c4 arms.  The distinction is important because by law, a c3 can only do educational work and almost no political work.  If you’re going to lobby legislators and put money into political activities, you’ve got to be a c4.  If Gender Rights Maryland hadn’t formed, you would have still had to rely on Equality Maryland to get in and do the real political work.  Now you’ve got a trans-led organization full of politically savvy trans people that can lead those efforts.
Here’s an indicator of how needed GRMD is: which of the other MD-based trans groups had the ability or even the notion to respond to Gov. O’Malley’s statement with a press release that not only expressed appreciation for his challenge to the legislature, but turned it into an opportunity to move the ball even farther forward by suggesting the commission?  To my knowledge, none.  
The people in GRMD know how to work the political system.  The people in some of the other MD-based trans orgs know how to reach out to and support trans people and perhaps they also know how to educate the public.  Looks to me like all these groups working together can cover all the bases with little redundancy.  As GRMD stated in their statement of purpose above, “we believe in building a broad coalition of like minded organizations”.

If you’re not a 501(c)4you don’t exist in the political universe.  There is nothing stopping TransMaryland, Trans United or MTA from filing for c4 for status if they want be pivotal players in the political and legislative process.

Mixed feelingsWhy not join one of the existing groups to establish a c3 arm? Creating another group competing for resources seems a little strange to me, until one looks at who makes up GRMD.

There’s an error therethree differences are notable twixt a 3 and a 4.
First, a 3 usually has tax deductible status, while a 4 does not.
A 4 can make political donations, a 3 cannot (officially, although they can donate to PACs, which is what a c4 is)
A 3 cannot state they support a specific candidate — but they can campaign on behalf of legislation and they can even lobby groups of legislators.
A 4 can specifically support a given candidate.
So, when it comes to the task of dealing with legislation, a c3 can generally do anything that a c4 can do, without concern or issue, as our opponents have demonstrated time and time again.
Oddly enough, a c4 is considered a Special Interest Group — so when politicians and pundits are decrying the power and influence of such, they are talking about c4′s.
A c3 is not considered such, chiefly because they cannot donate to or campaign for particular candidates.
SO, in the end, what’s being noted here is that one group is able to give money directly to candidates and campaign on their behalf, and there are three groups that are able to lobby and work to effect change in the legislature.
And you are saying that PACs are what count.  That leads one to believe that a PAC, therefore, counts only because it has money that it can give to a specific candidate.
Whereas the other organizations can give money to a specific candidate without the points of filing.
THe one benefit is that filing means you have to declare assets, which means you get to tell people how much money you have. And when they know how much money one has, they are more inclined to hear you than if they don’t.
I felt it important to clarify this: you misspoke.
Press releases are useful tools — and, sadly far too few people fully grasp the importance of them.
Redundancy will, in fact, happen, however — lobbying on behalf of trans people is an educational exercise, and so will result in multiple redundancies of educational effort.
Which isn’t unusual.  Indeed, I’d say that’s par for the course.
The question, though, is going to be what sort of educational messages are each of the groups sending in their efforts, who has the political history to be able to reach the players, and who’s got the money to fund it.
Everything else is just egos and butthurting.

5 names I trust to lead a groupSharon Brackett, Dana Beyer M.D., Donna Cartwright, Caroline Temmermand and Alex Hickcox
These are 5 names I trust to lead a group doing political action. I trust them 100% to make sure that trans issues are only advanced when the HRC and NGLTF say so. I trust that part of the coalition building will be to make sure that gay issues remain central and trans issues subordinate. I trust that all five will talk about unity and decry “divisiveness” ONLY when trans people express frustration at the positioning of trans issues and less important/ more confusing than gay issues. I trust that every single member of the board will remain silent when members of the LGB blame trans people for the failure of any legislation (inclusive or not).
In short, I trust this group to make sure that the HRC and NGLTF control all political access that trans people have.  

Do those other groups *want* a c4 arm? There is no indication that they door they’d already have one.
What makes you conclude that a political organization will be competing against the social services organization for money?  The different priorities of the different organizations would seem to interest different types of donors.  My guess is that some or all of the money donated previously to Equality Maryland by trans rights-focused supporters will now be shifted to Gender Rights Maryland.

Hope for the futureI really hope Gender Rights Maryland will rewrite the flawed definition of “gender identity” that NGLTF has apparently been pushing for a decade. There is no such thing as a “gender-related identity” that is not rooted in sex stereotypes.  If we want to ban discrimination against transsexuals, then let’s do that.
Also, as females have been the primary victims of sex stereotypes, I am hopeful that GRM will locate a non-trans female to serve on its board.

AbsurdIf doing HRC’s or EQMD’s bidding was what they wanted to do, they’d all still be in tight with HRC or Equality Maryland.  Do you realize that Dana Beyer was kicked off the HRC Governor’s Board?  You really believe she’s interested in carrying HRC’s water after that?  She also quit the Equality Maryland board because she disagreed with their handling of trans legislation.  You really think she wants to carry water for EQMD after that?  Totally absurd.

ObviouslyI don’t know the mind of Dana Beyer. I’m well aware that Dana got slapped by HRC for making a fairly innocuous statement in an article that questioned the national LGBT movement on handling trans issues. I’m also aware that she quit EqMD.
I’m also aware that Dana and the rest were perfectly happy following EqMD’s “better than nothing” messaging. Some going so far as to claim that shelters would be forced to house trans women – TOTALLY AND REPEATEDLY omitting that we would be housed as men/with men. Funny/telling/interesting that the board is only made up of those who were vocal and visible supporters of the flawed legislation.. no?
I’m also acutely aware that Dana having dinner with Andrew Sullivan somehow means he stopped being a transphobic jerk and that in some way means he shouldn’t make a public statement supporting trans women. That Dana uses “political reality” to let gay men and lesbians who have done harm to the trans movement get away without having to do anything about that harm.
Like I said, I trust that Dana and the rest will work hard for trans issues… as long as they don’t interfere with the primacy of marriage equality. I trust that GEMD will work to build unity within the LGBT… by criticizing any dissent or frustration by trans people and providing cover/excuses/ignoring LGB actions/statements/positions that undermine trans issues or our place in the movement.

We’ll seeHow that pans out. I just know that the current state of funding for LGBT groups is a little lean and question the start of a new group over the expansion of existing groups.  

ConfusedI’m not opposed to having non-trans women on the board of a trans rights group for a variety of reasons. I’m not following how being the primary victims of sex stereotypes is a particularly compelling reason though.

I think you’re going to be pleasantly surprised.GRMD has one immediate priority, and that’s passing a comprehensive gender anti-discrimination bill in 2012.  
You and I could go in circles forever saying “yes they are!” and “no they’re not!”, but there’s no point in that when the organization will formally come to life in the next few weeks and show us what it’s all about by its deeds.

Plany of ways for me to be surprisedSupporting a fully inclusive legislation after it became clear that was really the only option going forward isn’t one of them.

Interesting.

There is no such thing as a “gender-related identity” that is not rooted in sex stereotypes.

It might surprise you, but I agree.  Oddly enough, there are all manner of sex stereotypes that abound.
Now, one would think that sex stereotypes, being ostensibly covered under previous rulings relating to sex discrimination, would not be an issue that would need to be addressed.
However, on odd thing happens when “non-conforming” women, in particular, happen to appear to the “average” individual to not display certain physical characteristics of what they consider to be “usual” for a woman.
They lose court cases, regardless of the precedent.
The overall history shows a mixed bag, and almost always the losing side involves a trans person.  
So where I differ with you is on the use and inclusion of that particular concept in legislation.  Regardless of who created it or where it comes from, it is an important component, since it deals in issues of appearance and manner that are otherwise very difficult to define without creating, in law, specific classes of gendered appearance and behavior.
That is, making it worse, not better.
Furthermore it is not merely discrimination against transsexuals that is involved — as someone familiar with the process yourself should be aware, we cannot simply say “It is illegal to discriminate against transsexuals”.  That wouldn’t hold up in pretty much any legal challenge.  
So we have to make sure that whatever law is passed includes people who have no issue with gender identity and/or expression in the wider world.
That is, the law has to cover those who are and are not “conforming”.
For a person who is generally fairly sharp, I’m surprised that you haven’t thought this through more deeply.

This opinion…… may have some validity, but only in certain contexts.
Family Research Institute (cameron’s dive) is not a c4, and they certainly exist int he political universe.
Nor are most pundits.
Nor, for that matter, are most of the grassroots efforts going on in the broader movement.
So I have to take some measure of salt with your opinion, since its relatively narrow and generally incorrect.

As with Laurel’s comment…Yours, Marti, lacks certain greater value.
I’m decidedly not a part of whatever this mythical “gay, Inc.” thing that everyone seems to want to talk about is.
I’m certainly not a part of the private information board that you refer to.
Though, like you, it would have been nice. But it is, after all, a bunch of cis gay people.  And I’m fairly sure there’s something similar for trans folk, regardless of their sexual orientation.
The issue that I’d suggest focusing on is the nature of the people who are trans and that are involved in such a group — if there are a few, then who are they, and if there are none, then why not?
I think both you and I know the answers there and probably get the reason, though the way we would express it is markedly different.
For me, its all about the cis oppression and privileges over the trans community, and how even people who claim to be allies are often not, as well as the constant cultural reminders that we are not even second class citizens.
We’re way down the list.

That’s finebut the reality of the situation in MD seems to me to be this: until GRMD formed, there was no trans-led organization in MD properly prepared to do the political work that needs doing right now.  Do you disagree with that?  
Somebody needed to pick up the ball and run with it.  Did you see others picking up the ball and running with it?  
Btw, I wouldn’t fault an organization like Trans-United for not picking up the statewide political ball, because from what I can tell they’re set up to be a local (Baltimore) social services & advocacy organization, not a statewide political org.  What they’re doing is valuable and needed.  That they didn’t pick up the political ball and run with it is a statement of fact not an indictment.  I’m sure their interests overlap with GRMD, but their focus is different.  I’m wondering if the concern others have expressed about GRMD supposedly sidestepping them and other of MD’s trans orgs is just so much concern trolling.
GRMD has stated “we believe in building a broad coalition of like minded organizations”, which says to me that they want to work with anyone agreeing with their goal of full anti-discrimination coverage by the end of the 2012 legislative session.

Antonia, not part of GAYInc?and here I was so looking for you at the next LGTBilderberg group meeting…
Kidding aside, rumour has it that the trans have reason to be suspicious of their allies; there is a story going around that the new head of WPATH feels that no trans women, evn post operative, are really women, but some separate category altogether… not sure of the accuracy of the dish on this, but keep looking over your shoulders, sisters….”just because you are parsnoid” and all that kind of cobblers…

Well…What is meant by properly prepared?  
To my mind, what you are saying with that is an organization that had the experience, skillset, and knowledge to do something.
Which may or may not be true — Dana certainly has a well versed set of experiences that may be difficult to match, and has some skills.
That she didn’t join another existing organization may be due to the local personal politics which plague the trans community. Examples of which are on display here in this thread, I’ll note.
Being willing to work with another organization is not always the same as being able to work with another organization — I know many orgs that make that claim, but choose to do so only on terms that place them first and foremost, or that have internal issues regarding control.
So what it says to me, having discovered such issues first hand, is that they are at least willing to talk the talk.
Which is undermined, again, by their creating a new organization — were they willing to truly work together, they would have sought to get all the groups together and released the press release as a joint effort, combining skills and strengths.
Just noting that, I’ll add.  At this point, erm, I’ve got bigger worries than a few bruised egos.
The political ball has been picked up, and one could argue that since they have the funding and one could presume the skills and backing needed they shall run with it.
So would I agree that there was no properly prepared organization?  Not something I can answer since I only distantly know the players involved and their skill sets and their missions.
Do I see the other groups actually doing this?  No.  So I would have to agree there. Does that, in and of itself, make this new group the big kahuna?
No, not really.
Does it mean that we should fault the other groups for not doing something?  Maybe.  Did they try something? What were they doing?
Are they skilled or capable in doing such?  
At this point, the headline is all about the new group and their press release.  Oh wow.  Seriously, and without cynicism, I can say that it makes for good press, but does it actually make a difference?
Is there even an urge among the people who actually would have to do this commission or who would actually be doing the lobbying and the voting to do this.
An org which doesn’t capture the spirit of the grassroots is just another institution that exists to serve itself.
What do the grassroots trans folks of Maryland say to any of this — or are they too busy trying to keep themselves from being beaten in fast food places?
You wonder if its concern trolling — personally, I think it is.  Personally, I think the entire pile on about all of this is concern trolling.
The only things I see worth noting are the money issues and that yet another organization in MD is doing something for trans people.
After that, it always comes down to what will they actually do, and how much is going to cost the trans community that is broke because they can’t get jobs.
I’m still against even the consideration of a bill which incorporates transphobic bathroom exemptions. And I will be, because of the transphobia that inspires it — you can’t end transphobia by giving into it.
I’m at least willing to see what all of them do.
And if nothing else, this might be the thing that ramps all three of them up into a friendly competition to see who can get the job done first, best, and most effectively.

I know!I mean, wtf, right?  If anyone should be a member of Gay, Inc. it should be me, lol
snort
I’d likely get shot.
Then again, let’s see what happens after the primaries next year…

As far as you can tell?Except you aren’t very versed on the groups. If you’d done ANY homework you’d know that Trans-United is organized under Fusion Partnerships Inc, which is…in fact… a non-profit.
Apparently Mara Keisling can’t do any really meaningful political work, after all NCTE is a c3….. and well, MTPC in Massachusetts isn’t a real group, because they’re organized in the same way Trans-United is.
Face it, they’re not the group you want, so they don’t exist.

I’m versed enough to knowthat nobody but Gender Rights Maryland jumped into the void left by Equality Maryland.  The organization that does that competently is “the group I want”.  
I notice that none of the representatives of those other groups are chiming in here.  It makes me think that I was correct in surmising that there’s a whole lot of concern trolling going on here.

They are called Gender Rights MarylandSeriously?
Sex discrimination impacts females.  

Thanks for the back-handed compliment, random Internet person!If trans folx have been the big losers in sex stereotyping cases, then draft trans-specific legislation – stop casting this broad “gender identity” net. If the losers in sex sterotyping cases are trans people, tailor your remedy to specifically remediate the harm caused to trans people. The “gender identity” definition is overbroad. It harms females. It is unworkable from a practical standpoint.  And it creates in law standards of gendered appearance and behavior. How is that a good result for females?
BTW, I asked Lisa Mottet for white paper to support the language in the NGLTF gender identity legsialtion – the legislation she has been working for 10 years now – she doesn’t have one. That shocked me.
Also, there is surprisingly little MARYLAND case law in this area. It would seem to be that able lawyers (and there is at least one able trans lawyer in Maryland that I know of) should have been seeking these cases and litigating them in the last 10 years. It didn’t happen. I know not why.

You’re a breath of fresh air, Cathy…I figure that “Gender identity” can only mean “Cultural sex stereotype(s) to which a person, by nature or by choice, prefers to conform.”  
The reason no one can draft “trans specific” legislation is, quite simply, that to do so would require creating a new class called “trans persons,” outside of “male” and “female.”   This would constitute arbitrary classification for classification’s sake, and is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.  
If based on clothing and mannerism – which are 1st Amendment speech – it would also drag people into the classification unwillingly, due solely to their having engaged in protected speech, creating a massive and insurmountable due process problem too.  You can’t lump people into a legal category based on their engagement in mundane political speech.  Based on fashion choices?  C’mon…
And speaking of the 1st, if wearing a dress makes men into women, then how does someone make the political statement, “I am a man and I am wearing a dress and that’s OK for men to do and I am still a man regardless?”  Like when we wear pants?  They can’t.  ”Trans” happens to suppress speech, not enable it.
But what do all these TG and TS people really want?
The TGs seem to want a “minimum effort” threshold at which they can credibly claim to have crossed the sex-classification line when desired, while still falling backward again when they decide that’s more advantageous to them.  (Think pseudo-FTMs at MichFest, or Autumn Sandeen demanding to still be considered a husband by the Catholics last November.  ”Have cake/eat cake,” basically.)  
The TSs want a “point of no return” threshold beyond which they can never be dragged backward across that line ever again, no matter what.  (Think “Count backward from 100… Happy birthday!  While you were asleep the TGs ate your cake.”)  
No reason both can’t be addressed, but they are VERY different goals.  
– Andrea Rosenfield

Thanks!!

You can’t lump people into a legal category based on their engagement in mundane political speech.  Based on fashion choices?  C’mon…

Right on, sister.