Tag Archive | Politics

About HRC.ORG and why I refuse to donate

Nov21

I support a number of trans supportive organizations, but not one of the largest ones, the Human Rights Campaign. People sometimes ask me why and it’s because HRC has frequently, in the past, treated the ‘T’ in GLBT as a stepchild not worthy of full consideration.

Now, I would love to support HRC but because of their past actions, they need to make that up to the trans community. The presence of trans folk on their staff has always been minimized. They’ve released trans staff over what appear to be minor issues while retaining gay staff, some of whom have been openly transphobic.

So, since I could find no place on the HRC website to provide feedback to their email they sent soliciting donations, I’ll state it clearly here – HRC will get my support when they prove that trans folk matter as much as gay folk to them. And until they do that, my donations will go elsewhere.

Transphobia in Texas – Some Thoughts

Nov15

This post summarizes thoughts I’d started to write as a forum post elsewhere but which I decided to not post, since there are some trans people on that site who are argumentative and who insist that transphobia and discrimination are rare things. Rather than argue with people who are trying to directly deny my own life experiences, I thought I’d summarize some of them here. The short story is that discrimination and bigotry are real in Texas but depend a lot on exactly where you live and how liberal or conservative that area actually is. Below are my thoughts on the matter.

Texas is a bit unusual. Inside the major cities, there’s a lot more acceptance of trans folk and of GLBT people generally. Outside the major cities, it varies, but in general, the more rural you get, the less acceptance there is, and there is even occasionally often open hostility, discrimination, etc. Navigating the Texas legal system just to do a name change can leave one facing appeals and moving up the court hierarchy if the wrong judge decides to invoke the ultra-conservative Christian “God” card against you and even after those legal changes have been made (which are even authorized in state law), judges can rule against that without any seeming repercussions. See the Nikki Araguz case for an example of where a judge simply ignored state law because the plaintiff’s lawyers claimed “the Bible says so”. Worse, these bigots end up giving a bad name to those good Christians who do work with the poor, who accept GLBT persons, etc.

In my experience, which has been confirmed with talks with many other Texas transwomen, the more someone loudly proclaims their evangelical “born again” status, the more likely that person will be openly rude to and critical of you if they realize that you are transgender and in transition or have transitioned. Unfortunately, enough of these sort of people hold political office in Texas that it can be problematic for transgender people. However, the political tide may be turning against the far right in Texas as urban areas total population begins to outstrip rural areas. As those demographics shift, so might the balance of political power.

One of my local trans acquaintances once posted to Facebook a photo of a map of Houston that she’d marked up. She’d drawn a ring around beltway 610, which is what is considered “inside” the city even though Houston city limits extend well beyond I-610. She labeled that “The Shire”. Then, in the surrounding bedroom communities, she labeled them as “orcs”, “trolls”, “here be dragons”, etc. We laughed about it but it spoke to a truth that many of us Texas TG folk have experienced – direct face to face cruelty, from people who you thought were otherwise decent people.

When I came out, someone with whom I’d been friends for many years ranted on Facebook about “she-male perverts” but didn’t name me directly. But given that he’d just found out a few days before, and that thereafter he no longer discussed things with me but instead talked down at me and even yelled at me face to face, I’m 99.99% certain that rant was directed at me. Another who found out and who used to thank me for mentoring him on complex programming topics suddenly thought I should be fired for being a “pervert”. No, he would not listen to any attempt to explain things, nor even consider any references. “Yer a sinner, by gawd, and goin’ ta hell!” Thankfully we no longer worked at the same companies.

My own son, who married into an ultra conservative Southern Baptist clan refuses to let me see my grandchildren. Once, when discussing this, I said, you can’t protect your daughter forever. In just a few more years she can come seek me out of her own free will. His response? A venomous “I’ll make sure she understands about people like you before then!” His position is that any trans person should be legally required to identify themselves as trans as soon as you meet anyone, even in the most casual settings, so that person can refuse you service or to interact with you. In other words, open bigotry defined by law is what he and others want. I asked him if he meant I should be required to identify as trans when I order a burger at McDonalds and he said yes, so they can choose to refuse to serve me if they wish.

Those who claim that discrimination and hatred are rare things haven’t walked in my shoes. You’ve not had a son rant at you for 5 solid minutes where every third word was God, every other third word was fuck, and the remaining third words were incoherent babble. You’ve not accidentally bumped into your son with his family and watched your granddaughter run to your arms saying “I missed you!” only to have her torn away and dragged out of the restaurant by her mother, a look of shock and sadness on her face. You’ve not worked with homeless trans kids, only to see one choose suicide versus a state Child Protective Service that was determined to force him to live as a girl. You’ve not spent time with trans sisters who are suddenly fired and homeless. You’ve not seen a local pharmacist openly snarl at you for a prescription (yes, I changed pharmacies).

Discrimination and bigotry have been very real experiences in my world and I’ve only been transitioning for a bit over a year now. The tales that some of those who transitioned years ago here in Texas could tell might make your hair curl. I am very fortunate to work for a non-American company that has a “zero tolerance” policy against harassment and discrimination of GLBT persons and that has gender identity explicitly included in corporate policies. Many of the large and mid-size oil and gas companies in Houston also do, but many of the banks and other corporations do not yet so employment is a huge minefield since the US has not yet passed ENDA. A recent HUD housing discrimination case was here in Texas.

By the same token, some of the most accepting people of my trans status have been Hispanic Catholics. My daughter married into such a family and her father-in-law’s reaction to this news about me was that “people deserve to be happy”. Each time I’ve seen him, he’s been accepting thus far as has been his wife and my son-in-law’s sisters.

While the white, evangelical “Christian” bigots may be a minority, they are a loud minority and can and will try to make anyone with whom they disagree miserable if they can. Of course, they invoke God as the basis for their bigotry so trying to persuade them is just about impossible.

No, I do not urge any trans folk to come to Texas unless you are willing to live inside the cities and do your homework about the companies for which you wish to work. There are some amazing opportunities here with the right companies and if you stay in your “ghetto” (inside the city in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas-Fort Worth) and away from the lily-white evangelical suburbs. Fortunately, living inside the major cities is a great thing and all of Texas’ major cities are enjoying a renewal of sorts as well.

And the more fully you pass, the more likely you can slip by stealth and not even be detected since most of these same people assume all transwomen are ugly “men in a dress” caricatures. My own son had no idea who that woman was when he saw me in a photo in a dress with some friends. When told that the woman in question is also a gamer, he thought that was “cool” and said he’d like to meet her. My friend said that wouldn’t be likely since “Liz” only rarely “came to town” and dropped the topic. My son has actually bumped into a number of transwomen that I now know and he simply does not know, yet he insists that he can spot any “tranny” a mile a way. I’ve not disabused him of his illusions as he won’t listen to me at all anymore anyway.

This is the reality of my experience thus far in Texas and my experience is far from unique, as many other trans folk I know have told. For others to tell me that my experience is “wrong” or that their experience of acceptance trumps mine is the height of hypocrisy. I can and will state that bigotry against trans folk is a very real issue, at least here in Texas. For those who live in locations where that’s not the case, I’m very happy for you but to argue that trans people don’t need legal protections is to argue against the reality that many of us have experienced. And mind you, my experience has been positively mild compared to some I have met.

Oh, and every single person who’s discriminated against me and others I’ve met? A Tea Party Republican type. Every single time. Maybe not every Tea Party person is a transphobic bigot but every transphobic bigot I’ve encountered thus far has been a Tea Party person. And I’m not alone in that experience.

The Tea Party’s Roots in Southern Slavery

Oct4

I do occasionally write politically here but with this government shutdown, I tire of the nonsense that we are supposed to have a “small and limited” government. This essay is to show the historical roots of the “small and limited” government movement.

People forget that Republicans opposed Social Security, claiming it would cause the “end of the republic” and had similar dire claims about Medicare when it was passed as well. None of those “the sky is falling” claims ever came to pass. Yet they are all based on the erroneous belief that we are supposed to have a “small” and “limited” government.

That notion, of a small and limited government, is clearly refuted by the historical documents of that period itself. The anti-federalists were so alarmed at our constitution that they wrote things like this:

“This government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends. … The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one. … It has the authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and the property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or the laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given.” ~ New Yorker Robert Yates.

Some state delegates from Pennsylvania said this:

“We dissent … because the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government. …

“The new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states. … The powers of Congress under the new constitution, are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments; whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed.”

So very clearly, from the beginning, the constitution that was mandated by federalists like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton was intended to be a powerful central government.

In Article 1, Section 8, the Framers included language giving Congress the authority to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” and “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

As historian Jada Thacker has written, “The Constitution was never intended to ‘provide limited government,’ and furthermore it did not do so. … This is not a matter of opinion, but of literacy. If we want to discover the truth about the scope of power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, all we have to do is read what it says.”

Given the malleable phrase “general Welfare” and the so-called “elastic clause” for passing all “necessary and proper” laws, Thacker notes that “the type, breadth and scope of federal legislation became unchained. … Taken together, these clauses – restated in the vernacular – flatly announce that ‘Congress can make any law it feels is necessary to provide for whatever it considers the general welfare of the country.’

“Lately there has been an embarrassingly naïve call from the Tea Party to require Congress to specify in each of its bills the Constitutional authority upon which the bill is grounded. Nothing could be easier: the first and last clauses of Article I, Section 8 gives Congress black-and-white authority to make any law it so desires. Nor was this authority lost on the Founders.”

That authority is what generated those anti-federalist responses! It did result in the Bill of Rights but it never, ever cut back on the power of the central federal government. So the calls for “limited government” are erroneous and not based on history itself.

Thus we find the entire tea party movement to be grounded in something other than respect for the constitution, which apparently they have not studied nor the circumstances surrounding its creation.

So what is the historical basis for this belief in limited government? It is none other than the South’s infatuation with slavery. And who most clearly proved this with his own words? What would such power do? It would bring about, said Patrick Henry, what “I have ever dreaded—subserviency of southern to northern interests.” By which he meant, as he had phrased it more succinctly three years earlier in opposing the Constitution, “They’ll free your niggers,” was what Patrick Henry told his fellow Virginia delegates when he saw the central power of the federal government.

It took decades but that is indeed exactly what happened. So the belief and the desire to return to limited government is rooted in a combination of historical Southern bigotry coupled more recently with Ayn Randian based greed, anarchism, and narcissism. That’s the true history of the movement to limit the central government.

As Elizabeth Warren recently said, “The threats may continue but they are not working. And they will never work. Because this is a democracy. And in a democracy, hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can’t otherwise win their fights through elections, can’t win their fights in Congress, can’t win their fights for the presidency, and can’t win their fights in courts. For this right-wing minority, hostage-taking is all they have left – a last gasp of those who cannot cope with the results of our democracy.”

Further references:

http://www.alternet.org/how-gop-extortion-rooted-southern-slavery

Some small progress in Texas

Sep19

Yesterday, Nikki Araguz had her appeal heard by a 3 judge panel in the 13th District Court of Appeals in Texas. Now you have to remember that the person who started all this legalistic crap was Thomas Araguz’s former wife. You need to remember that the lawyer she hired was so slimy that he’s been barred from further law practice in Texas. You have to remember that Judge Randy Clapp accepted a bad photocopy of Nikki’s voided California birth certificate from said lawyer, which the state of California has publicly stated is not valid and then used that as his basis for declaring that Nikki is not female. You have to remember that when presented with further evidence he denied a rehearing saying any evidence wasn’t going to change his bigoted mind. And then you have to remember that is how he made his ruling.

The hearing yesterday is very likely to rule in Nikki’s favor as is the full appeals court when the ex-wife appeals the panel’s decision. You also have to remember that the Texas Supreme Court is packed with anti-gay activist judges who are likely to rule against Nikki on completely unconstitutional, religious, and spurious grounds.

At that point, all this will end up headed for the Supreme Court and I can’t see the Supreme Court not taking this because we have two states disagreeing about identifying documentation which Texas is required, under the 14th amendment, to accept. No, the 14th amendment doesn’t say that explicitly but case law has established that fact. And I cannot see Texas winning this purely on those grounds alone. Texas will be forced to accept that birth certificate, and having done so, will be forced to recognize Nikki (and every other transgender person in Texas) as legally of the gender which they claim. So why all this hoopla? It’s standard for radical right wing extremists and will then further give Greg Abbott more ammunition to talk about Texas seceding from the US because the rest of the country is beginning to recognize the basic civil rights of transgender persons. This is all political theater and also because evil men like Greg Abbott appear to actually enjoy hurting other human beings in order to shove their religious beliefs down your throat.

Here’s a good summary of the current situation from Cristan Williams who has been writing about this case for a few years now.

Radical Right Wing Crazies

Sep16

Texas attorney general Greg Abbott (who is now running for governor since Rick Perry announced he will not seek another term) is planning to sue the entire state of Texas to impose his religious views on everyone.

Now note that this line of argument was already tried in the 1950s and 1960s as the basis for continuing to discriminate against blacks and to ban interracial marriage and we know how that turned out in the end. But here in Texas he might win, which will mean Texas will have to be spanked, publicly yet again, by the federal court system for violating basic civil rights. (Texas has this ugly history in that regard, unfortunately.)

What really gets Abbott’s cockles all bunched up in a frenzy is that every major city in Texas, from Dallas to Austin to Houston and most recently San Antonio have all approved GLBT protection laws within the city limits. Further, the vast majority of major corporations operating in Texas have strong pro-GLBT rights corporate policies.

So what is driving this? Abbott’s classic appeal, using the standard GOP “Southern Strategy“, to try to reach bigoted white voters. It’s that simple.

Now Abbott just had his head handed to him by the federal court system in a lawsuit initiated by Wendy Davis, the progressive woman who famously filibustered that heinous anti-abortion travesty for nearly 12 hours. As retribution, the GOP controlled state senate tried to draw her district out of existence. And they lost, not just for her district but the entire redrawn state map was tossed out as blatantly biased.

So that’s the framework under which Abbott is proceeding. And before you think this might not touch you as a trans person, Abbott is of the opinion that gender can never be changed, meaning he is seeking to legally de-transition every single transitioned transsexual in the state of Texas.

This is what transphobia looks like, people. It wears a business suit and claims to be “mainstream Republican”. If you are trans and you vote Republican, you are supporting John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and that entire crew who have openly declared war on you and your right to live.

What boggles my mind is that there are trans people who actually think that this is acceptable. I can tell you that if the radical right wing extremists win and you lose all your rights as a trans person, I won’t be shedding any tears for you if you helped make it happen.