« A more thoughtful Jena 6 response | Main | The ad with the missing flip-flop »
October 03, 2007
Stop lying, Matt Foreman!
Posted by: Chris
One interesting side point to the ENDA-transgender debate is how out of touch those who "lead" the movement are with the actual GLB folks they represent. (The T's are clearly on their side.)
Matt Foreman, the leader of those demanding a trans-or-bust version of ENDA, has publicly claimed, "In this defining and morally transformative moment, our community has come together in an unprecedented way and said once and for all that we will leave no part of it behind." In a statement today he claims, "Never before have we seen our movement so galvanized and so united in an effort to make sure no part of our community is left behind. This is unprecedented."
These are lies. There's simply no other word for them. He knows very well that there is a great debate raging among GLBs about which strategy to adopt. Foreman's characterization is a flat out lie intended to silence half the debate.
Foreman's statement is only accurate when it describes how the leaders of most GLBT organizations have responded. (It by no means includes all groups, by the way. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Servicemember Legal Defense Network and Log Cabin Republicans aren't on the list, just to name the first three that came to mine for me.)
In the insulated, politically correct world where these "leaders" operate, sacrificing our rights to score ideological points is a no-brainer. That's why, in the letter from 90 (now more than 100) gay groups gathered together by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force claims, "The undersigned represent the vast and celebrated diversity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in this country."
Back in the real world, GLB folks are actually very split on the question. Almost half (38.1%) believe that gay and trans protections are different enough that they should be in separate bills anyway. That's even further than I would take things. Another 14.3% agree with Barney Frank that if the votes for trans-inclusive ENDA aren't there, then it makes the most political sense to go forward with a gay-specific version. Finally, less than half (47.6%) agree with the "trans or bust" strategy urged by the Task Force and others.
On all sorts of blogs and gay web sites, the debate rages, and GLBs take all sorts of views. You can characterize that debate a number of different ways, but to claim as Foreman has that "the community" or "the movement" is "unified" is a lie -- a disingenuous lie intended to bully people into silence.
But we will not be silenced. We will continue to speak out and, as appears necessary, ignore our marginalized LGBT groups and speak directly to politicians like Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin who remember that the goal here is to pass what is achievable.
As Barney Frank is quoted as saying in a story by Lisa Keen:
“The question facing [the LGBT community and its supporters] is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap,” said Frank, in the statement. Frank said that public education and lobbying on gender identity was “much less far along” than that on sexual orientation discrimination.
Frank criticized what he said was “an unwillingness on the part of many, including leaders in the transgender community” to acknowledge that “there is more resistance to protection for people who are transgender than for people who are gay, lesbian and bisexual.” …While LGBT leaders told Frank they would prefer to not go forward with ENDA at all, rather than delete gender identity, Frank said that would be “a disaster -- politically, morally and strategically.”
“[I]nsistence on achieving everything at once,” said Frank, “would be a prescription for achieving nothing ever.”
It's truly ironic that these "leaders" portray their trans or bust strategy as one of unity when it is the single most divisive step taken in the recent history of the movement.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e54eef9b058833
Comments
-
Well, Lucrece, given that the leaders of HRC and Stonewall Democrats endorse FMA supporters ( http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2007/02/lets-see-if-we-can-follow-bouncing.html ) and toss tens of millions of dollars to candidates who support state constitutional amendments as "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" ( http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001999067_kerrygay07.html )......what, indeed, do you define as "selling out"?
One wonders if the reason gay Democrats are so vitriolic towards gay Republicans is displacement of the way they are treated by the Democrats on which they blow tens of millions of dollars annually.
-
Chris,
I must confess the reaction the TranGender Issue has surprised me.May I ask a question, is there any chance YOU are "out of step" with the community?
Did you see this large of a reaction coming? If not, you've got to wonder where you are in relation to the community as a whole.
P.S. I'm still betting it goes forward without the Tran Community.
-
There is something deeply satifying in watching the fall-out from the ENDA debate. That might seem like an obnoxious thing to say, but the entire theme of my blogging over the past two years has been that, no, gay people are not some monolithic group who agree on anything and everything; that the national organizations really don't have Clue One what the average gay American might have to say on any given issue.
Yet they keep speaking for us, in politics and the media, as if they represent us, as if there was an election and All Gays empowered them to assume that what they desire is what all of us desire.
To see that notion being disabused all over the media and the blogosphere is a beautiful thing. I really do think this may represent the first cracks in the ultimate breaking of power for some of these organizations who presume to speak for us without listening to a single word we're saying; who act as if they have been handed a holy mandate as the Gay Truth, while they exist in enclaves and political circles far removed from the average gay family.
There are Gay Activists and there are Gay Citizens. This week, the Gay Citizens are pissed.
Finally. It was only a matter of time before Foreman and those like him over-stepped the boundaries of presumption. They couldn't help themselves. No one told them "no" before. This week millions of gays are telling them "Absolutely, 100%, hell no." It's about time.
-
Chris,
Read what I wrote on the IE blog. Leading gay rights organizations have done a better job than any anti-gay group could in ensuring ENDA is stuck in the political wilderness for years to come.
-
If anything, I feel less inclined to align with trans interests than ever before. I think I'll just refer to LGB from now on. Or maybe that's just the anger talking.
I don't appreciate being told gay rights are now contingent on such wishy-washy concepts as "eradicating gender" and eliminating a "binary view of male/female." Like that'll ever happen. The trans movement is vague, amorphous, self-conflicted and not ready for prime time. I will not hitch my wagon to it.
-
B-T-W
I just visited the LCR website and Blog. They seem to have no opinion on this matter one way or another.Hmmm.
-
"I don't appreciate being told gay rights are now contingent on such wishy-washy concepts as 'eradicating gender' and eliminating a 'binary view of male/female.'"
Well, therein lies the problem; because we're attracted to people of the same sex, we're automatically assumed to support the complete abolishment of gender norms and denial of any differences between males and females.
-
NDT,
I find it amusing that you would equate the progress gay Democrats have made in pressuring their party in comparison to gay Republicans, which so far have achieved little to no goals with the GOP.
How is the abolishment of gender norms a bad thing? Your adherence to it doesn't help you (you're still a goddam queer to any straight man no matter how macho you are).
Furthermore, I smell anti-feminist sentiment in your speech, the presence of the common masculist straw man. Sure, the two sexes are by no means identical. However, if you bother to check the most recent studies by the American Psychiatric association, the only salient distinction between males and females is their sexual liberalism. Rates of aggression have been shown to be moderate at best and subject to context. The matter is not whether men and women are different, rather how different they are. Studies show that we operate more or less in a similar manner in most tasks, and that the sex-based differences have been largely exaggerated by the general public.
-
"I find it amusing that you would equate the progress gay Democrats have made in pressuring their party in comparison to gay Republicans, which so far have achieved little to no goals with the GOP."
And I find it amusing that you go off on a theoretical tangent, rather than dealing with the specific examples I presented showing gay Democrats, liberals, and organizations openly endorsing and supporting FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters with tens of millions of gay dollars.
Amusing, though....not surprising. I find intolerant and hateful Democrats are quite often incapable of admitting their own hypocrisy of action in their support of homophobic Democrats; instead, they project it onto Republicans.
"How is the abolishment of gender norms a bad thing? Your adherence to it doesn't help you (you're still a goddam queer to any straight man no matter how macho you are)."
Translation: Since you don't like gender norms, rather than to admit the fact and take responsibility, you are going to try to eliminate them by claiming they're bad and awful and that anyone who happens to follow them is repressing their true self.
Sorry dearie; I'm male. The fact that I'm attracted to other males doesn't change that in the least. And if other people want to see me as a "goddamn queer", that's their problem, not mine; it certainly doesn't change my maleness.
"Furthermore, I smell anti-feminist sentiment in your speech, the presence of the common masculist straw man."
Translation: You have no counter-argument, so you're going to accuse me of being a racist...oops, an "anti-feminist".
"Studies show that we operate more or less in a similar manner in most tasks, and that the sex-based differences have been largely exaggerated by the general public."
Yup, pregnancy is just an exaggeration. Menses and menopause are just an exaggeration. Hormonal patterns and brainwave activities are just exaggerations. Emotional responses to similar stimuli are just exaggerations.
-
Oh, and by the way, because I know it's coming....the problem with your characterization, Lucrece, is that you automatically assume the differences between males and females to be negatives.
I consider them to be positives and strengths of both.
-
"And I find it amusing that you go off on a theoretical tangent, rather than dealing with the specific examples I presented showing gay Democrats, liberals, and organizations openly endorsing and supporting FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters with tens of millions of gay dollars."
The difference between who you support and who I support is in the numbers of anti-gay votes cast by each party's representatives. Sure, we have some bad apples on the Democratic side, but Republicans in comparison is where rotten apples are the rule, not the exception. Don't assume I sympathize with the Democratic party. Maybe it all comes down to which party I see as the less odious, since both are pretty happy to use our lives for political power wrestling.
"Amusing, though....not surprising. I find intolerant and hateful Democrats are quite often incapable of admitting their own hypocrisy of action in their support of homophobic Democrats; instead, they project it onto Republicans."
Haha, yes, the intolerant and hateful Democrats who, unlike a minuscule Republican minority, supported a bill that protects us from acts arising from such intolerance and hate you accuse them of. Besides, when you find a Democratic icon who seeks cheap laughs by calling opponents "faggot" and getting applauded by the majority of the Democratic conference, you can come lecture me about projection. It's not projection, it's votes. Democratic records run circles around Republican ones in term of gay-friendliness during policy-making. Of course, it is much easier to stay in denial of your beloved party's anti-gay majority sentiment.
"Translation: Since you don't like gender norms, rather than to admit the fact and take responsibility, you are going to try to eliminate them by claiming they're bad and awful and that anyone who happens to follow them is repressing their true self.
Sorry dearie; I'm male. The fact that I'm attracted to other males doesn't change that in the least. And if other people want to see me as a "goddamn queer", that's their problem, not mine; it certainly doesn't change my maleness."
It's rather laughable how you propose to lecture me on argumentation when most of your own is composed of straw man-resulting assumptions. Nobody talked about repression, but apparently it struck a nerve.
Sorry, big boy; male is a category of sex, not gender. You'll be a male regardless of how you act because you have something called male genitalia. Yes, the fact that you are a male attracted to other males is irrelevant, as that is a topic of sexual orientation, not gender. And it does turn out to be your problem, as definitions are still influenced by general perception. I thought the fact that despite being male, gay athletes have to participate in a separate league if not closeted would make that obvious.
"Translation: You have no counter-argument, so you're going to accuse me of being a racist...oops, an "anti-feminist"."
Translation: I don't know how to respond when people pick up my allusions, so I'm gonna throw around a big, fat, and presumptuous lie about whether they have an argument or not.
"Yup, pregnancy is just an exaggeration. Menses and menopause are just an exaggeration. Hormonal patterns and brainwave activities are just exaggerations. Emotional responses to similar stimuli are just exaggerations."
God, did someone miss so blatantly the point. We are not talking biological differences. We are talking behavioral differences. Maybe you simply chose to dismiss the study of a reputed organization without reading it out of sheer laziness.
"Oh, and by the way, because I know it's coming....the problem with your characterization, Lucrece, is that you automatically assume the differences between males and females to be negatives.
I consider them to be positives and strengths of both."
Don't tell me what I am to assume; I think I'm better qualified to know which assumptions I make myself. The problem about your approach is that you see these differences to make males and females completely different animals, intrinsically fated to be alien to each other's perspective. I could not care less whether these biological differences are considered negative or positive. What I do have a problem with is the interpretations of people as regards these differences. It creates a rigid mold which restricts the consideration of exceptions. This in turn ends up hurting individuals that do not fit the mold. Case in point: What is the validity of male-male families when there are only 2 providers by your line of logic but no nurturer? The gender binary should concern you, as it is a construct created solely with a heterosexual perspective of relationship interactions. It leaves no space fr the dynamics of homosexual relationship interactions, basically invalidating your existence in theory.
-
I would just like to thank Chris for his writings on this important issue. For a long time I have been lead to believe that I somehow had a problem because I didn't see trans rights as part of the G&L, I intentionally left out the B because I don't think it belongs there either, movement and now I see I'm not alone.
-
Lol! Ok , look Chris , just two letters left. Let us know when your readers get it down to one G . What was it you were saying about this blog setting examples of behaviour for the community ? Oh, are you a lesbian ? Well no, you have nothing in common with them at all.
-
"Haha, yes, the intolerant and hateful Democrats who, unlike a minuscule Republican minority, supported a bill that protects us from acts arising from such intolerance and hate you accuse them of."
LOL.....oh, I see, you can't explain why you support marriage bans when Democrats push them, so you fall back to "hate crimes laws".
Well, I can tell you this; hate crimes laws do exactly squat to prevent hate crimes, as our recent wave of crimes in the Castro have shown (ironically, most due to African-American and Hispanic gang activity). Furthermore, as other cases elsewhere have shown, i.e. Matt Shepard, people who commit violent acts against gays are prosecuted and punished just like everyone else is, even in the absence of hate crimes laws.
What they do do is satisfy a need for special treatment.
"We are not talking biological differences. We are talking behavioral differences."
I love how gay leftists will try to argue that biological differences don't cause behavioral differences and that the differences between the genders are the result of "learned norms" and that one can choose fully to ignore them.....but then scream that sexual behaviors and attractions are the result of biology, not learned, and cannot be chosen.
"The gender binary should concern you, as it is a construct created solely with a heterosexual perspective of relationship interactions. It leaves no space fr the dynamics of homosexual relationship interactions, basically invalidating your existence in theory."
Or it states that maybe, just maybe, homosexual relationships are not and cannot be the same as heterosexual ones.
I think that's the real problem here.
-
Darlie, you're so full of venom that you're completely divorced from the reality of what I wrote. The reason I used GLBs wasn't to kick Ts out of the community. As I explained in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of this post, it is the viewpoint of the GLBs at issue here because the Ts are presumably on the Task Force/Foreman's side:
"One interesting side point to the ENDA-transgender debate is how out of touch those who 'lead' the movement are with the actual GLB folks they represent. (The T's are clearly on their side.)"
That said, every time I have written about this issue in the past, trans folks have come forward to me in person or by email to tell me that they DON'T in fact agree with gay rights being held hostage for their civil rights. Glad to know at least some of you have a conscience.
-
"LOL.....oh, I see, you can't explain why you support marriage bans when Democrats push them, so you fall back to "hate crimes laws"."
ZIMGLOL...oh, I see, you can't explain why even though some Democrats support marriage bans, the majority don't, unlike Republicans. Instead you choose to ignore the entire comment and pick little, isolated pieces here and there to morph out of context into material for a failed argument.
"Well, I can tell you this; hate crimes laws do exactly squat to prevent hate crimes, as our recent wave of crimes in the Castro have shown (ironically, most due to African-American and Hispanic gang activity). Furthermore, as other cases elsewhere have shown, i.e. Matt Shepard, people who commit violent acts against gays are prosecuted and punished just like everyone else is, even in the absence of hate crimes laws.
What they do do is satisfy a need for special treatment."
They sure don't eradicate hate crimes, though any rational person could've known that there is no such thing as zero crimes, rather a reduced ratio. I'll find you hard-pressed to argue that harsher sentencing does not influence people's decision to commit a crime, however.
No, there is no equality in prosecution. Race, native origin, sex, and religion are protected by hate crimes; sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected. It either goes one way or the other: Strip hate crimes laws off ALL categories, or extend them to all threatened minorities.
"I love how gay leftists will try to argue that biological differences don't cause behavioral differences and that the differences between the genders are the result of "learned norms" and that one can choose fully to ignore them.....but then scream that sexual behaviors and attractions are the result of biology, not learned, and cannot be chosen."
I love how ignorant individuals misconstrue the point. The origin of the behavior is irrelevant. We are talking how behavior is similar in the studies. We are not excluding biological differences, rather that the studies show that even with biological differences, males and females seem to function more or less the same. The only salient differences are men's more liberal outlook on sex, a moderate yet subject to context gap on aggression levels, and men's better performance in throwing capabilities. I repeat, the behavioral differences were taken into consediration in a peer-reviewed scientific study by a reputed association of professionals whom you call into question despite the probable fact that you have not the credentials to testify as an expert on the topic. Even with all the biological differences summed up, the results showed that the differences are not pointed, rather that the media and the general uneducated public tend to exaggerate such differences to fulfill their want for a petty sex wars or to maintain the silly mystic, occult feel to the other sex.
"Or it states that maybe, just maybe, homosexual relationships are not and cannot be the same as heterosexual ones.
I think that's the real problem here."
You're not getting it. It is not just about relationships between heterosexual men and women, and homosexual men; the gender binary is a model of the interactions heterosexuals have with their wives, female friends, husbands, male friends, and the behaviors that are appropriate taking the heterosexual ideal into consideration. The gender binary excludes the existence of homosexual men and women because the gender binary model is built upon the "masculine" attributes complementing the "feminine" attributes in the building of society. Under the gender binary, homosexual men don't exist because only men penetrate and women are penetrated; only men are aggressive while the women are passive. The homosexual man who gets penetrated during same-sex sexual activity thus loses by the gender binary's rules his category as "man." Our society functions and enforces the gender binary, and banishes those individuals who don't follow it. As a homosexual man, you do not exist or fit in this society because you may be different in your dealings with same-sex friends, different-sex friends and, most importantly, because you break its basic mold of idealized "maleness."
-
"ZIMGLOL...oh, I see, you can't explain why even though some Democrats support marriage bans, the majority don't, unlike Republicans."
Of course they do. John Kerry was chosen as their candidate by majority vote, wasn't he?
Furthermore, given that HRC, Stonewall Democrats, their leaders, and others openly endorsed and supported these Democrats with tens of millions of dollars and chants of "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive", it should be obvious to anyone that one can support bans on marriage at every level and still be called "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive".
"I'll find you hard-pressed to argue that harsher sentencing does not influence people's decision to commit a crime, however."
LOL...obviously, you aren't aware of the established gay position on the death penalty.
( http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NGLTF/1999/organizations.jointly.oppose.death.penalty-02.10.99 )
Read that again; gay organizations whine and cry that harsher penalties are not deterrent -- except in the case of "hate crimes".
Pick one. Either say that the gay organizations are wrong and that harsher penalties are effective in deterring crime...or admit that they are right and that harsher penalties are not a deterrent, which means your "hate crimes" argument completely unravels.
"It either goes one way or the other: Strip hate crimes laws off ALL categories, or extend them to all threatened minorities."
Go right ahead and strip them. That's perfectly consistent, and I'm fine with it.
"I repeat, the behavioral differences were taken into consediration in a peer-reviewed scientific study by a reputed association of professionals whom you call into question despite the probable fact that you have not the credentials to testify as an expert on the topic."
LOL....the problem is that you are not using that study intelligently; instead, you are perverting its results to argue that there are no differences between males and females.
"As a homosexual man, you do not exist or fit in this society because you may be different in your dealings with same-sex friends, different-sex friends and, most importantly, because you break its basic mold of idealized 'maleness.'"
Oh good. Can I call into work on Monday and tell them I don't have to come in because I "do not exist" and they have "banished" me?
I wouldn't bet on that one working, just as I wouldn't bet on it working anywhere else.
-
"Darlie, you're so full of venom that you're completely divorced from the reality of what I wrote. The reason I used GLBs wasn't to kick Ts out of the community. As I explained in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of this post, it is the viewpoint of the GLBs at issue here because the Ts are presumably on the Task Force/Foreman's side:"
Venom, hardly, I think we TG's (Jews) have the right to speak out just as you Transphobes (Nazis) march us towards your gas chambers. Well guess what Mr Crain, once again you assumed WRONG. There are "T's" just as transphobic/homophobic as you are. You should get together with them, oh but then you don't associate with T's , do you. Other then debating them with your slander.
You gutlessly call Matt Foreman a liar when he wont crush the kitten to get his SS officer status. The world belongs to the strong doesn't it ?
-
I would say something, but I think Darlie's comparison of her life in the United States to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany speaks for itself in terms of skewed perspective.
Meanwhile, you should be praising Iran for its stance towards transgenderism. ( http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002164729_irangender30.html )
-
"Of course they do. John Kerry was chosen as their candidate by majority vote, wasn't he?
Furthermore, given that HRC, Stonewall Democrats, their leaders, and others openly endorsed and supported these Democrats with tens of millions of dollars and chants of "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive", it should be obvious to anyone that one can support bans on marriage at every level and still be called "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive"."
Tell me who introduced the proposition to ban marriage, though. How convenient to leave out the part where the senate at that time was controlled by Republicans.
"LOL...obviously, you aren't aware of the established gay position on the death penalty.
( http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NGLTF/1999/organizations.jointly.oppose.death.penalty-02.10.99 )
Read that again; gay organizations whine and cry that harsher penalties are not deterrent -- except in the case of "hate crimes".
Pick one. Either say that the gay organizations are wrong and that harsher penalties are effective in deterring crime...or admit that they are right and that harsher penalties are not a deterrent, which means your "hate crimes" argument completely unravels."
I could not care less what the gay establishment thinks of harsher penalties; that's what I have my own convictions for. Harsher penalties DO have an influence on the ratio of carrying out crimes; the increase of sentence severity from battery to manslaughter is there for a reason. You won't fool anyone by saying that additional years to your normal ought to dissuade you from picking out minorities purposely for crimes. Get it through your straw man-loving head: I will not be held to evaluation based on my adherence to leftist dogma; my positions are there because of my own will, not because I feel I must follow a handbook set of rules because for the time being I find Democrats the better choice.
"Go right ahead and strip them. That's perfectly consistent, and I'm fine with it."
Silly goose, who am I to strip them. That's what your beloved Republican representatives are for. Plead to them to take out all those categories, including RELIGION; we'll see how well that works.
"LOL....the problem is that you are not using that study intelligently; instead, you are perverting its results to argue that there are no differences between males and females."
This is categorically disingenuous. Where have I said that men and women don't have differences? I am arguing just how different they are. No, I'm not perverting the results, and I'm sure you even haven't bothered to read the study over at apa.org yourself; nice try on trying to take emphasis off the point, even if it turned out to be nothing but an act of laziness.
"Oh good. Can I call into work on Monday and tell them I don't have to come in because I "do not exist" and they have "banished" me?
I wouldn't bet on that one working, just as I wouldn't bet on it working anywhere else."
Way to take things literally; I bet you didn't perform that well on college English courses. Here's a hint: there are many forms of banishment. You perform perfectly on the hysterics department, though.
For further posts, please attack my argument; I am getting tired of your lazy adherence to straw mans and the assumption of my positions and adherence to any one political ideology.
-
"I would say something, but I think Darlie's comparison of her life in the United States to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany speaks for itself in terms of skewed perspective."
Lol, this from a group that had to go to the entire other side of the world to get a pic of some TG marrying a woman. Oh really, tell us about the 5 year old NY ENDA bill where "incremental" inclusion was again used as an excuse to go gay only. Funny how it never was addressed again. Jews were told that the gas chamber were showers to get them to go in. Chris and his happy band of transphobes are no different. The only thing skewed is your ability to see the similarity, but then you have vgood reason not to.
-
We should not be arguing back and forth about Democrats and Republicans. Our first priority is to secure civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians. The ultra-right is our long-time known enemy. The ultra-left "we know what's best for you, there is no more male and female" is our new and present enemy.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Lucrece on Oct 3, 2007 8:18:00 PM:
Ugh, of all examples, the Log Cabin Republicans? They're a sad little organization, Chris. I have yet to see significant results from this organization's efforts.
Gay Republicans are, well, "sell-outs." This is not to say that gays should always be Democrats, just that at this current time one would have to be deranged to vote for a party so hostile to our cause. Even the most conservative Democrat is leap and bounds ahead of the "gay-friendly" (patently false description) Republican.