'Trans or Bust' is still a bust - A Response
Posted October 14, 2005
Chris Crain is the Executive Editor of the Washington Blade. This is a newspaper in Washington, DC for and about the GLBT community there. The odd thing about Washington is that local news is national news, so the things it covers often have implications far outside of the District. Anyway, I go to their website every Friday (that's when new editions are published) to see what's happening in the GLBT world.
There are other Blade (and Blade-like) newspapers in other cities: New York, Houston, Atlanta.
Anyway, in August 2004 HRC publicly changed its previously held position - vowing to support only trans inclusive legislation on Capitol Hill. This was a huge victory for the trans community, but this news was not so warmly welcomed by some in the GLB community who felt that this shift would prevent their own protections from getting passed. Chris Crain wrote a blistering editorial in the Washington Blade about it (ENDA gets trans-jacked). Needless to say, this did not endear him to the trans community.
Many of us wrote responses to him. I'm sure he got a ton of email over it.
Anyway, here we are - over a year later. Apparently, this was a slow news weeks and Chris felt the need to re-iterate his position. So, he wrote a follow up editorial - 'Trans or bust' is still a bust. Needless to say, I'm sure he's gotten another in-basket full of anger. I saw one trans-activist who compared him to Nazi leader Joseph Goebbels (we have some very angry people in our community).
My response isn't quite to angry, but I think it's still pretty to the point.
Dear Mr. Crain:
My name is Donna Rose, and I am a post-op transsexual woman. I read your recent editorial Trans or Bust is Still a Bust with interest, a touch of anger, and a little sadness.
I suppose I am one of those 'trans-activists' that you describe. I recently became the first (and only) openly transgender person named to the Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors which, it seems based on your past opinions, puts two strikes against me. No matter. I don't take your opinions, as short-sighted and wrong-headed as I perceive some of them to be, personally.
Or, seriously. At the same time, though, I cannot let this pass without comment.
Somehow, your editorial reminds me of a Fox News story I saw last year. As an obviously biased newscaster grilled the Mayor of San Francisco about the fact that the City recently passed benefits legislation that would cover Sex Reassignment Surgery for city workers ("Aren't there more important things to be working on?", he asked), the video on the screen was full of marchers from the San Francisco Pride parade - prancing in full drag-queen regalia. The intent was to frighten viewers with extremist visions that had little or nothing to do with reality, or with the topic at hand. It was meant to manipulate. That's what your article does.
Your article paints a picture that is so far removed from reality as to mislead and misrepresent. It strays here and there to touch on every single stereotypical touch-point about the transgender community. For example, the fact that insurance coverage for many of us is tied to the fact that Gender Dysphoria remains in the DSM IV has nothing to do with the thrust of your article - you seem to include it to imply that people like me are inherently imbalanced, or manipulative. You're wrong.
At one point you imply that if transgender rights advocates are successful it would make gay people "extinct" (your word, not mine). Do you know how crazy that sounds? How paranoid? We are no threat to you, to your gender, to your sex, or to your right to express yourself.
Certainly, we may be a threat to your rights - at least in the narrow way that you seem to perceive them. I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King's words: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", and I'm glad that more people take a more holistic view of Human Rights than you do.
"Selfish" (your word, not mine) is one of those words that gets thrown around in an effort to inflict guilt. To want to be part of a community is not selfish - and shame on you for implying that it is. The reality of the world is that we all need empathetic friends to help us.
There is an inherent power in community. If the GLBT Community is to be successful it needs the help of our straight allies, of politicians, of people willing to hold out for higher ideals. Pragmatists understand that. If the transgender community is to be successful it needs the help of our GLB brothers and sisters. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing, however, is your strategy, your logic, and your argument. There are those who prefer to stress our differences. I, and others like me, find it to be much healthier and effective to focus on how we're alike.
I think the most telling word in your entire argument is that you describe transgender inclusion as immoral. Seeking transgender rights has nothing to do with morality, and to put things in this context makes you little better than some hate-filled Baptist preacher who justifies their hate with their personal convictions. You may disagree with it, you may not like it, but to challenge it on the grounds that it is "immoral" shows just how far you'll reach to sway opinion. I think most readers will be able to see the real agenda here.
The sad part is, I think most of us want the exact same thing. We want the same rights that others take for granted. We want to be free to live our lives, to be safe in our homes and on our streets, to be free from discrimination in our workplaces, to have families. These are the foundations of our struggle.
Instead of focusing on these ideals we squabble about who deserves them and who doesn't - about who is holding them back. We make disagreements about strategy personal, and we try to find a scapegoat. You have targeted the transgender community for that role, and that's a shame.
I see no difference between what you're trying to do here than what many Democrats tried to do to the Gay and Lesbian community following the last election. They needed someone to blame for the losses - for holding them back - so they targeted the gays. "It's YOUR fault we lost!" They might be right. The Democrats could have jettisoned support for GLBT causes as an unacceptable political liability, and some did. But, you know what? Many stood by their principles. Many continue to recognize the non-negotiable right of dignity for ALL, and they continue to press for our community.
Back to the point - I really think your article could have been two or three sentences long. You could have said that you don't see the connection between the GLB and T communities, you don't agree with the current strategy of moving together as a single community where nobody gets left behind, and that you're concerned about the way things are going. Frankly, the rest of the words are just filler meant to confuse and convince. I suppose that's what writing an editorial is all about. Perhaps you get paid by the word, with a bonus for each inflammatory word you throw in for effect.
I recently celebrated Coming Out Day by coming out to a peer at work. This person is of Central European descent. He thought about my revelation for a while and came back to my desk at the end of the day. "I can't help but think of your struggle towards acceptance in the same context of my own journey as an immigrant," he said. "When do any of us stop being an immigrant, an outsider? When do we have to stop arguing for our fundamental right to belong?" Based on the ongoing need for discussions like this, as a GLBT community we're obviously not there yet.
*****