Yes, the word Transgender was not included, but I do not see that as a slight as others might. When we, as Community have such a long title (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexed, Questioning-And expanding daily)to describe us, sometimes, for berevity and flow of speeches, it gets truncated.

You did notice, didn’t you, that bi-sexuals were left out. Intersexed was not mentioned. He certainly didn’t use the loaded term Queer. And all those Questiong people got left out too.

You are right to mention all of the things accomplished for the trans population, it shows that you as a whole have NOT been left out. And as you noted, VP Biden has stated that Trans Rights were the biggest Civil Rights issue of our time. This administration is supportive of you, seemingly very much committed to making your lives better too.

But I think we do our entire community a dis-service by asserting an intentional slight.

Can you really think the President would be able to say, eloquently in his speech: Our journey is not complete until our gay lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersexed, hijra and questioning brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

That is a mouthful and is usually in political speech truncated and meant to be inclusive. Side note, VP Biden has never said that Gay Rights were the civil rights of our time, he left out gays and lesbians and all the rest, to the effect of only including transgender. I didn’t see anyone complain about his exclusion of all the other letters when that happened.

As always, I appreciate your articles Autumn.

I’m sorry, this just comes across as feeling hurt for the sake of feeling hurt, and its really getting annoying.

…he did not take the opportunity to talk about LGBT civil rights to a national audience…

You’re right, its not an LGBT education session, its THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS. He also does not mention the word “lebsbian” either…oh how scandalous.

Maybe, just maybe he is talking to the American people where they are using language that they know to convey the idea that this community (and whether you like it or not that alphabet soup of terms in the public consciousness is easily abbreviated as “gay”) is part of the larger arc of civil rights history in America.

On top of that, your argument is itself devoid of historical accuracy given that the Stonewall Riot, which was explicitly mentioned, was as much about trans people (many of whom were people of color) as it was about LGB people.

The implicit argument of the totality of the President’s remarks was that America is better and we are better when EVERYONE is included. It helps no one when some people feel the need to get defensive just because they were not personally name checked in something that was neither a list nor meant to be a comprehensive recitation of every aggrevied/marginalized group to ever set foot on America’s shores.

Strangely enough, the bulk of the American people who are not a part of the groups that went unmentioned specifically, probably understood better the idea that it was implied that said groups were included in the larger narrative of the speech. Why is it that its a good bet that every bigoted conservative commentator over at Fox News probably felt like trans folk and in their minds “cross dressers” were included in Obama’s thinking on equality, but some Trans folks do not.

The idea that if they are not saying your name specifically then they must not be thinking of or including you personally really needs to stop. It drives otherwise sympathetic people away.

I wouldn’t be bothered by the fact that transgendered Americans weren’t specifically mentioned in his speech if such failures of mention hadn’t been used in the past to keep discriminating against those people who weren’t mentioned. But since we all know that has, in fact, happened and not infrequently, it’s no use pretending otherwise. Obama left out transgendered Americans just like he left out transgendered service members in the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Trans service members can still be booted unceremoniously out of the service and without earned benefits. Someone want to come along and tell me that objecting to not getting a specific mention is just “feeling hurt for the sake of feeling hurt”? These are real people who have real issues associated with real discrimination. Simply because they weren’t specifically mentioned.

Big Deal

You and I aren’t alone in feeling slighted Autumn. Maybe your detractors would like to hurl insults at this little girl too.

As a gay man I have to say that I am just tired of being refered to as LGBT and having homosexuals and transsexuals lumped together; they are different things with different issues entirely.

I probably have a different view. I dont like people throwing around LGBT when there arent actually any trans involved in what they may be referring to. Its just an attempt to be politically correct as opposed to literally correct.

For me its equivilant to be African American and having Asian tacked on everytime someone refers to you.

Your feeling slighted is a good example of how its high time for trans people to break out on their own and not simply be a footnote to whatever the gays are doing.

You know, Americablog has a site owner that you would just adore! I invite you to go there as soon as may be. I’ll even provide you a handy link. If you are in fact John Aravosis, never mind. You already now what kind of person he is.

i cant stand John… goes back years. But Hey at least when the Netroots whithered and died it meant we no longer had to deal with John as the token gay.

I’m not feeling slighted, but instead I thought that using gay instead of LGBT was notable and significant, so I noted it.

And to add to that thought, I included a list of things that President Obama and/or his administration have accomplished for trans people. It isn’t progress towards trans equality where the Obama administration progress towards a just an equitable society is lacking, but instead what could be said to be lacking is public acknowlegement that equality measured by gender identity and expression is an equality narrative of note in the same way that as equality narratives measured by race, gender, and sexual orientation are of note.

Biden was on the Ellen DeGeneres Show shortly before her marriage to Portia. She asked Biden something about attending her wedding and he said, very warmly, “I would LOVE to attend your wedding.”

I happened to be watching that day. So, I would say that Biden came out in favor of gay marriage shortly before August 17, 2008, if not even earlier, in some other way to which no one paid much attention.

As for Obama, he was for gay marriage before he was against it, then for it again. In 1996, he wrote that he supported gay marriage (silly term) and would fight any attempts to interfere with it, or words to that effect.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Obama_backed_samesex_marriage_in_1996.html

However, as we all know, he threw gays under the bus while running for POTUS.

Then, after Biden was noted as supporting gay marriage–and after Obama’a donors and gay bundlers were putting a lot of pressure on him, Obama claimed that his views had evolved, never mentioning his mid-Nineties views.

Finally, Carney just said that the President still believes that the issue of gay marriage is a matter for the states.

As we all know, since 1998, a majority of states have amended their respective constitutions to outlaw gay marriage. So, leaving it to the states takes an awful lot away from the struggle for equality in which we are supposedly engaged, with the President leading the way, as depicted in his inaugural speech.

I do not disparage the importance of having a POTUS support equal rights in his inaugural speech. I think it is enormously important, more so maybe than repeal of DADT. However, it is not quite that straightforward, especially given what Carney just said.

Not to mention that DOMA is still federal law.

I haven’t had you make a comment on a commentary of mine in quite awhile, SciFi Geek, so let me first say “Hello!”

The comment by you is really an effort in deraling. You’ve made sure that I know you consider trans issues issues to be completely trivial — which is significant since I’m very publicly trans. You’re more than implying I enjoy feeling hurt so much that I look for reasons to be hurt and offended. The idea that anyone enjoys being hurt and discriminated against as a daily practice is so preposterous it could only be believed by someone with no empathy — someone who has no idea what it’s like to be a member of a significantly marginalized class.

I wasn’t feeling hurt when I wrote this piece; I don’t feel hurt now — my commentary wasn’t expressing any sense of hurt. But claiming I wrote my piece as an exercise of me feeling hurt for the sake of feeling hurt? That is a pure Deraliling For Dummies argument.

At a minimum, your tack is insensitive.

I get it: trans issues aren’t your issues, and you make no bones about it.

I am a fully transitioned woman and I am not impressed by Autumn’s whining. You list a lot of amazing things that were accomplished during the last 4 years and you WHINE? WTF is wrong with you? I would say this is like someone back in 1969 not being impressed with the moon landing. I mean why didn’t we go to Mars? This isn’t activism Autumn, it’s WHINING.

Noting is not the same as whining. Please point out where in the commentary you believe I’m whining.

You forget that at Stonewall, the a very significant number of the folk who participate in the riot and follow-up uprising were called “queens” — now divided into folk who divide now into who we would now call drag queens and transgender people, to include Syvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson.

You’re probably not aware that the lead attorney who successfully argued for marriage equality at the California Supreme Court was NCLR attorney Shannon Minter — before Prop 8 repealed that California court decision — is a trans man.

You’re also probably not aware that the Executive Director of Outserve-SLDN, who is arguing for spousal benefits for L, G, and B servicemembers is a trans woman — Allyson Robinson.

And, I took to the Whete House Fence twice, and went to jail twice, for repeal of DADT — even knowing that repeal of DADT wouldn’t mean trans people could serve openly. But my belief is that a if an issue is an issue for even one subcommunity of the LGBT community, then it should be an issue for everyone in every subcommunity of the LGBT community. And, I acted on my belief.

Trans people are very much a part of what you consider only the gay community, but every national civil rights community that works on lesbian, gay, and bisexual person consider the LGBT community — where every national civil rights community organization considers LGBT civil right (as T rights as part of their mission and vision statements). We’re part of your “gay” community, fighting for your ordinary equality, whether or not you consider trans people as part of a broader community that includes both you and me; whether or not you choose to fight for trans people’s ordinary equality.

I’m a gay transman. Get over your damned trans-hatred.

People like you will NEVER be satisfied. Maybe you want to be out and proud and eat, sleep and breath politics, but a lot of us don’t. I have something called a life and politics comes in way down the list of priorities. Sometimes I’m involved in politics, but not often. I’m also very satisfied, overjoyed in fact, at the progress we’ve made in the last 4 years. And that’s why I’m flabbergasted by the ridiculous “note” of yours. Imagine if you will if McCain or Romney were president! Be grateful for what we have. Being a thankless b*tch isn’t a pre-requisite for an activist.

As I figured, you won’t or can’t identify where I’m allegedly whining.

Autumn-

I personally don’t take it as “whinning”, but if you need an example of “hand-wringing” well, there is this:

“The lack of rhetorical inclusion of trans people in the second inaugural speech means that President Obama isn’t including the vision of equality for trans people in the national civil rights dialogue in the same way he’s included the vision of equality for gay people in that dialogue.

At this point, I’m not sure what the full significance of that reality is, but I’m certain that there is significance that trans community will come to better understand in years to come.”

Which to me, and obviously a few others, might EASILY be read to say: “Because we didn’t get a specific shout-out it’s obvious (despite the considerable progress made these last 4 years) that we are not included and bad stuff is sure to happen to us.”

Also, when you utilize another individuals blog to bolster your case, you embrace their arguments, and this line in Adele M. Stan’s blog post :

Alas, transgender people, it seems, will continue to wait for their day.

does indeed seem like whinning. The obvious fact that our Community moniker is indeed a long one and sometimes gets truncated to “gay” as an umbrella for us all is being entirerly ignored. And that takes it from legitimate concern to hand wringing that somehow you are obviously going to get the shaft. I also noted that I ddin’t see you or anyone else decry the fact that Bi-sexual, Queer, Questioning, and Inter-sex also got left off the list in the speech. You can’t talk about this being a slight specificlly of the transgender community when 4 other segments of the population were also left out.

But I gave you my reasons I thought the speech only mentioned gay in general, and I feel it was truncated for berevity sake in the speech. If he had tosay the entire community name every time he spoke, he’d still be making the speech today.

Nugirl-

You can be as nasty as you wish to Autumn, it’s her decision to allow your comments to stay, but I think you are belittling and mean spirited.

Autumn Sandeen has devoted a large majority of her life fighting for Equality across the board, please, enlighten us all to what YOUR efforts have been. Yeah, you can complain all you want and be personally attacking in your posts, but really, nugirl, what have YOU done in this fight that you feel privlidged and entitled to belittle the efforts of others?

I may disagree with the idea of this being a slight, but I don’t disagree with the FACT that Autumn Sandeen has put enough skin in the game that if she wants to “whine” as you call it, she has the right to.

You know, an 11 year old girl can figure out the problem with Obama’s speech and yet, a number of heartless dipshits on this thread seem incapable of doing the same.

Nice work, guys. You’re a credit to both your level of maturity and empathy.

timberwraith,

Sadie wrote a lovely letter indeed. Her letter, however, did not attack the President for leaving out transgender. She didn’t go on a campaign against the speech, she instead wrote her own, and expressed why and how she see’s her future. I commend her for a lovely letter.

But the moving letter of an 11 year old is just that, a moving letter of an 11 year old. Yes, she’s very smart and articulate, but she is still an 11 year old and as such is not yet fully able to understand the complexities I and others might see in this issue. I notice that no one here has responded to the fact that Queer, Bi-Sexual, Intersex and others were left out as well. Why are you not complaining about the fact that Bi-sexuals were left out? Or the “Queer” or “Questioning” were left out? It seem to me that you have selective outrage. You, nor anyone else upset about this, have bothered to even acknowledge the fact that Transgender was not the only group left out. When I see you lament the fact that all those other letters in our Community were left out as well, then maybe your argument will have some weight to it. I find any mention of this, that does not lament the others left out, to be highly suspect and self-serving of only ONE portion of the Community.

Were you offended that Queers, Bi-sexuals, Inter-Sex, Questioning, Polyamourous and the rest were left out? Did you make any noise about their exclusion? If not, then your argument looses it’s strength, because it sure looks like the ONLY concern is for Trans, and not the community as a whole.

Autumn, no part of my statement was “derailing” since I actually addressed the substance of what you said.

No “Trans issues aren’t my issues” personally, but I’ve always been supportive of Trans causes.

However, the title of this very post is that “President Obama Didn’t Fold Trans People Into The American Family” which is utter nonsense.

You may not be “hurt” but you are clearly either upset or in someway dissatisfied that the President did not specifically name check transgender or gender identity in his inaugural address. Were you not in someway emotionally invested in that percieved slight you would never have made such a preposterous statement. Hell its not even acurate at a basic level given that you yourself acknowledge that Stonewall…the event that he tied to other pivotal civil rights events, was as much a trans centered event as an LGB moment. You say words, matter, but clearly context does not.

You’ve taken upon yourself to conclude that someone is not including you because they specifically did not mention you even if your inclusion was clearly inferred.

The President was not making an LGBT speech…he was making an inaugural address which is just as much about style as it is substance. You acknowldge that Trans folk are part of Stonewall. However you fail to acknowldge that to the vast majority of America that knows nothing about the toungue twisting alphapbet soup that is the LGBTIQA… community…gay is equally all encompassing. You were not being excluded…you just were not the primary focus…nor, for that matter, were you necessarily the primary audience for that message. You may only feel properly acknowledged if a speaker spits out a long all encompassing acronym….but the truth is that for John and Jane Q Public living in Podunk Mississippi or North Dakota….its all gay. Ask how many LGB folks have been asked if they want to change gender by confused straight friends, relatives or aquainteces when they come out. Out there amongs the unwashed non activist masses…its all gay or queer if they’re feeling particularly nasty.

When the goal is to use a prominent speech to draw in those masses and get them to see the coomunity as a whole as being a valued part of the Amerian family…you don’t need to necessarily fuss about with terms. You go where the vast majority of the people are, use the language that they know and start painting that big picture.

What you did with this post comes across, as others have noted, like whining. I found it insulting because I know that you are way to intelligent to seriously think that you were intentionally being excluded. To even suggest that based on nothing more than a rhetorical flourish makes you look small an petty.

I was responding directly to the complaints of folks above who were calling for excluding/forgetting trans people all together or simply remarking that people are making a big deal out of nothing. However, yes, as a bi/queer person, it’s annoying that Obama left us out and others as well. I’m so used to bi folk being excluded that half the time, I take that particular exclusion for granted. Ironically, I’m also so used to trans people being excluded that I take that for granted, too. The light bulb didn’t go off in my own head until reading this article.

The 11 year old did indeed pen her letter in response to the exclusion. Read the article behind my link. And yes, it does matter what an 11 year old writes. Quite often, the young see far more clearly than their numbed-out, jaded elders. The next generation so often brings much needed change that far outstrips the efforts and scope of prior generations.

Good for her.

And quite frankly, when someone points out that they’re annoyed that a particular group is excluded from an official’s public consideration, their observation isn’t invalidated by forgetting to point out the exclusion of other groups. That’s a disingenuous response, Rob. Quite often, I see people use this as a distraction to manipulate people out of defending various oppressed groups. It’s a cheap “gotcha” tactic used to get people to shut up about the exclusion of others.

Why didn’t you mention asexuals, Gray-As, demisexuals, and other folks on that part of the sexual spectrum, Rob? What about those folks? Why did they get excluded from your list?

What about bigender people or two-spirit people?

What about people from the kink community?

People engaged in sex work?

All of those folks experience varying degrees of oppression related to issues surrounding sex, gender, and sexuality. Why did you forget about them?

So, do I now get to dismiss what you’re saying? Are you going to shut up, now? I mean, why should anyone listen to anyone else? There’s always another “Gotcha!” around the corner, isn’t there?

Here’s a radical idea: why don’t we consider multiple points of exclusion to broaden the dialog rather that trying to use multiple points of exclusion to shame each other into silence?

I took my list from the official LGBT etc. list as explained in the history of the term on Wikipedia. I already knew the evolution of the term as I was around when it was GLB and there when we added the T, and there wehen we added the Q and the other Q and the I etc etc etc. I want’t attempting to list every sexual spectrum point there was. And actually you just helped point out the issue. With a name that includes multiple points on a sexual spectum, you can’t always list them all.

There is currently a title for our Community and so I was remarking on that. It expands every day. Yes, I know there are calls for some of the terms you mentioned to be included, but so far I haven’t seen a mass movement to add more letters. At some point it will take hours to say the name, even when just saying the letters. THAT IS MY POINT about the exclusion. It was a statement of support for our ENTIRE community, it was truncated for berevity’s sake.

And I do see it relevant to point out that not one individual upset about this slight had spoken up about the other folks left off the list. When one claims they were excluded from the group, it bears pointing out that they were not the only titles left out. For goodness sake, even the word lesbian was left out. The President is not LGBT, so he doesn’t probably understand the issues surrounding the truncation of the term LGBT. He used brothers and sisters to include both genders, I believe it was an attempt at inclusion of us all. L and T, and Q and I and all the other letters in addition to G that was the only one mentioned.

And I believe you meant to use the word “INCLUSSION” in the first half of your last statement.

And one can dismiss me all they want, if that is your choice, go ahead. But when one claims exclusion, others have the right to say they don’t agree with the premise that they were excluded. As a gay man I heard a reference to us all, but maybe that’s because I’m from the age of Dinasaurs and knew that once upon a time the term Gay was used for us all, and as such, I didn’t hear a message of exclusion, I heard one that includes us all.

I have to add that it is NOT disengenous to expect a part of a community that lays claim to exclusion to also lay claim to the exclusion of their brothers and sisters, otherwise they simply are doing the same thing. Calling for their own inclusion but not that of their brothers and sisters. Isn’t that what people who disagree with this article are being told. You don’t care cause you got yours? If one is truly upset about exclusion, they would be complaining about not just their own. Or is it up to someone else to get that other letter their inclusion too?

Nope, I meant exclusion in my last paragraph. In other words, if a situation arises, such as this one, in which multiple groups are excluded, then one can use those multiple exclusions as a means of fostering a larger dialog addressing broad-based inclusion. This is far more constructive than saying some variation of, “But you left out groups A and B. So, you’re selfish, and hence, I can dismiss your complaint about being excluded.” Rather than dismissing the person’s complaint of exclusion, address the other groups that were excluded in addition to the original complaint and move from there. Don’t try to turn this into some kind of competition. That’s just going to piss people off, cause them to shut down, and dismiss you as a jerk. Given the way trans people have been treated by a good portion of the world, why waste one’s time on yet another person looking for an easy way to dismiss trans issues?

As a gay man I heard a reference to us all, but maybe that’s because I’m from the age of Dinasaurs and knew that once upon a time the term Gay was used for us all, and as such, I didn’t hear a message of exclusion, I heard one that includes us all.

Thanks for your honesty. Nevertheless, that statement speaks for itself. Society rarely ever works that way. Society takes the minimum, most privileged meaning of a word, limits the working definition to those parameters, and interprets cultural norms and law accordingly.

For example, in theory, protection against discrimination based upon sex should cover trans people, genderqueer people and a whole host of other gender and sex non-normative individuals. Sadly, until very recently, it has offered little protection legally. On a cultural level, many people find discrimination based upon sex and gender to be offensive when the effected party is a gender normative cis woman, but gender queer people or trans people go right out the window.

The political reality behind Obama’s wording is pretty obvious if you’ve watched politicians dance around trans issues during the past decade. Society has shifted in immense ways when it comes to accepting lesbians and gay men. It still has a hell of a way to go in accepting trans people and other sex/gender non-normative groups. It’s a political third rail, and as such, will not be referenced in a widely public speech for many years to come.

After a really craptastic history around trying to get protections added for gender expression into ENDA and all of the strife created between the T and the other parts of the alphabet, there’s a whole lot of bad blood surrounding the issue. As such, there is an understandable mistrust toward language that that does not specifically include those who are still extremely politically unpopular.

If you have been shat upon regularly in the recent past and continue to be shit upon in the present, its pretty understandable to assume that exclusion is the order of the day. Unless your intent is to access that history of political strife, you might consider an alternative approach. Otherwise, be prepared to be ignored and be prepared for a wall of hostility.

There has been more done for Trans rights by THIS President than has been achieved in the last 40 years, I’d think the proof would be in the pudding that you were not left out.

Thanks for the conversation, only by discussion can we understand our friends and allies.

I see you’ve found your next “gotcha” and have failed to acknowledge that your approach to this matter was damaging.

Oh well. That’s the internet for you.

you really can be an ass. It seems you found your own “gotcha moment” in everything anyone else posts. you seem to take great pleasure in ridiculing others for the same behavior you have.

For a minute I thought you might have something to add to the conversation, seems I was wrong.

If you had one ounce of intelligence, you would have realized I was pointing out the things Autumn noted above, in response to your claims of always getting shit on and how you are always excluded. If all the progress of the past year is exclusion, then it seems you will don’t understand INCLUSION. It seems to me, the further we go in achieving our rights, the more the trans portion seems to want their own movement, unencumbered by the LGBQ and other letters in the soup. Maybe that’s something you should consider. It does appear that there is a call to disengage your letter from the rest. Everytime there is an inclusive statement by any politician that does not recite the alphabet soup we call a Community name in it’s entirerty, the trans community is the first to scream about it. Just go ahead and blame it on everyone elses cis-privlidge. We’ve grown use to the insult.

“Alas, transgender people, it seems, will continue to wait for their day.”

I understand. Obama didn’t mention the working class, the longterm umemployed, government employees, unions, or the victims of Wall Street fraud, either. Guess you’ll have to wait for your day right along with the rest of us.

I think the issue of self-identity and labels is very interesting, and I think there is real reason to consider where the gay and lesbian rights movement does and doesn’t adequately include everyone in the rainbow alphabet. I am not sure I would fault the President, and at the same time, I thin there is reason to question if his comments were really all-inclusive.

http://thomascwaters.com/2013/01/28/rainbow-alphabet-lgbt/

So, I’d been troubled by this for a few days, because I was worried I was being very cis-centric by thinking “Oh, come the f*** on”.

Then I got to go out drinking with two of my good friends, who basically swapped genders. M1 is … well, I’ll be honest, he’s better at being a guy than I am, and I was born one. And M2 is in the top 5 of girliest girls I know. (We all prefer girls, so, we have a LOT in common)

They agree. M2 said it best, when she suggested you find better fitting panties, because obviously your current ones are a little too binding. (She’s way classier than me, too).

Uh, you don’t really wanna know M1s’ response…

—-

Do I think it’s a shame that you, me, and a whole bunch of other people weren’t name-checked in the speech? Nah. It’s an iterative process, and if you’re expecting everything to turn the corner now now now, well, good luck with that. It’s gonna happen, don’t get me wrong. I have, do, and will totally support you having the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that I do. And I fully expect you to have my back if I decide to start whining about the bigotry and discrimination against those of us who…. are in the middle.

It’s likely to keep sucking for a while. Ain’t gonna lie to you. But we’re working as fast as we can as a people to get better, I promise.