The Human Rights Campaign’s embattled San Francisco Gala dinner was held, as scheduled, last night. So, too, was the “Left Out Party” organized by local community leaders held just outside.
Those outside were treated to a broad array of speakers (local politicos and community leaders), musicians, and a display of broad community unity.
Meanwhile, dinner guests in the ballroom at the St. Francis heard HRC Business Council members Diego Sanchez and Meghan Stabler, and HRC President Joe Solmonese, talk about the organization’s commitment to the transgender community, and to a fully-inclusive ENDA.
I’m going to provide a glimpse of what happened outside, as well as inside, without comment. I think it all speaks for itself.
Outside:
Inside:
Following is the text of Diego Sanchez’s remarks at the HRC San Francisco Gala (many thanks to Diego for sharing this):
HRC San Francisco Dinner – Diego Sanchez Remarks
Westin St. Francis Hotel, Sat., July 26, 2008
Thank you for that gracious introduction. Thank you to the Steering Committee for inviting me to address my LGBT friends, family and allies. Ladies, Gentlemen and everyone else who doesn’t identify that way … You are dedicated to a common goal – EQUALITY, and you are clearly committed to keeping marriage for same-sex couples a reality in California. Equal marriage is a national priority, and we transgender people hope that you will help us be seen as equal and as a national priority as well.
Tonight, I hope to accomplish three things. First, I want to intensify your commitment to transgender inclusion, and to affirm that our lives matter. Our need is urgent. Our employment is at risk, our healthcare is at risk and our lives are at risk. You only have to look right here in California where the lives of Gwen Araujo and Lawrence King were taken simply because of who they were. I urge YOU to help change that landscape.
Second, I want to explain a little of the frustration my trans brothers, sisters and ally colleagues and compadres are talking, singing and chanting about across the street.
Third, I want to talk about what HRC is doing and what more HRC and we ALL HAVE to do to show our commitment to the full inclusion of trans people into our community.
It’s always a pleasure to be at the Westin St. Francis. My first professional hotel stay was here for the Coca-Cola National Bottlers Convention in 1979.
Ten years later, I was on the Holiday Inn corporate jet returning to Memphis after a Mexico City business trip with the company president. He had arranged for us to listen to the World Series, which as you know, that year featured the Oakland A’s and the San Francisco Giants.
The rivalry was hot, the language fierce and the energy electric.
But in 15 seconds, baseball became a second priority because on Oct. 17, 1989 Game 3 was interrupted by the Quake of ’89.
I was immediately diverted to San Francisco for the next six months to help house and feed people from all of the neighborhoods affected by the earthquake.
People with A’s baseball caps worked alongside others in Giants caps because they recognized their common need and realized no one was as dedicated to getting the work done as people with skin in the game, no matter what cap they wore. Let us use that example in our own community, starting now, regardless of whether we are LGBT people or allies.
I’d like to focus on the letter T in LGBT. Why? For one thing, we are excluded from the first wave of ENDA legislation while our rate of job demotions or loss is documentable and rising. Congress tells us that we are less than human when they tell us to let a bill for employment non-discrimination ride only with sexual orientation. We FEEL left behind because we ARE left behind, but fingers are too often pointed at influencers, not decision-makers. There’s no reason for anyone to feel good about that. HRC wishes it wasn’t so. We wish it were different. But we need to play the hand we were dealt to move forward.
Until there’s an ENDA that protects us all, there is still the desperate need to work. And that’s where people like you who contribute to HRC get to see multiple arenas in which money supports programs that help us navigate reality … until our dreams of inclusion can be true. And we all want that to be true as soon as it can be.
We have greater opportunities ahead with a new President and hopefully a more pro-equality Senate and House come January 2009. HRC has endorsed Senator Obama who if elected has already expressed his support for a fully inclusive ENDA. THAT is how we get to an appropriate ENDA, leaving no one behind. Not me, not you and not my friends across the street.
Just last month, I was honored to testify before Congress in an historic hearing about the need for gender identity and expression inclusion in federal non-discrimination employment laws. When I testified, I needed the whole team – ACLU, HRC, NCLR, NCTE, and The Task Force, – to be connected, prepared, rehearsed and successful.
In my testimony, I talked about my friend Ethan St. Pierre, an extremely qualified employee whose lost his job over for no other reason than because he identified as transgender and was brave and honest enough to disclose it. There are countless other stories of transgender people like my brother Ethan. These people are real. Their lives matter. And yet, transgender people have to negotiate for inclusion while our lives are at highest risk.
If that reality is going to change, it’s going to take every one of us. And that is why in an op ed in this week’s Bay Area Reporter, I asked readers who have jobs to donate one quarter of vacation time to contacting members of Congress about gender identity and expression in ENDA. I’m asking you to do that, too. If we all help, we can have ENDA and other fairness protections that recognize gender identity and expression sooner. But THAT is why my brothers and sisters across the street have to call for us to be included NOW and that’s important. I share that desire.
Despite what you might see sometimes, Joe Solmonese is helping do his part to pass a fully inclusive ENDA. He is dedicating his expertise and mobilizing his staff to help us in every way that HRC can. For example, The Corporate Equality Index today is not a tool for trans people like me know if an employer will provide full medical and health benefits. That has to change soon, too.
I know that Joe has taken some licks, and I want to make clear that all of the gains I just cited have been on his watch. Things mentioned as needing improvement are things already on Joe’s radar. And it’s under his command that HRC recently hired Allyson Robinson, a transgender woman, as Associate Director of Diversity to focus on trans issues for HRC. She has already had key meetings and involvement in trans issues and with trans people nationally and in local markets, and she just completed her second week. That is real progress thanks to Joe’s leadership.
It’s not just about the public leadership, but it is also in whom I know Joe to be. He’s a person, not just a president. He the kind of person who participated here in the AIDSLifeCycle from San Fran to LA, and took a break to participate on the LGBT conference call for Obama with 100 miles left to ride. I think I would have needed a NAP – but not Joe. And that is the kind of determination we need leading the fight for our community.
And at this time, I d like for you to please join me in watching a brief video showing Joe and the HRC team in action.
(ROLL VIDEO)
Please join me in welcoming my friend, HRC’s President, Joe Solmonese.
Following is the text of Meghan Stabler’s remarks at the HRC San Francisco Gala (many thanks to Meghan for sharing this):
MEGHAN STABLER
My name is Meghan Stabler. I am software executive living in Texas with my partner Erin. I am a member of HRC’s Business Council, Steering Committees of Austin & Houston, and Sen. Obama’s National LGBT Policy Committee. I am a transgender woman, a transsexual, a parent, an activist, and as of Wednesday, July 23, a new United States citizen. Speaking to you so shortly after taking my oath of citizenship, and so soon after gay and lesbian couples were finally able to marry here in California, provides me with a new urgency on what I’m about to say, and what we’re all here to do.
After 18 years in this country, I took an oath to support and defend our Constitution, which aspires to recognize all citizens as equal. And yet, as a transgender woman, I know that I am not a full citizen. When I was a white married male, my oath of citizenship would have brought me a promise of equal opportunity. As a transgender woman, I can be fired in 38 states because of who I am, and have experienced discrimination and demotions in my once successful career as an executive. My partner and I cannot marry in Texas, and are excluded from protections like Social Security and second-parent, same-sex adoption. In short, my citizenship is less than what it would have been. And my challenges are similar to yours, but more complex. They mirror the burdens that are shared by my trans and ally brothers and sisters across the street. Their voices for making trans people’s lives equally respected are my voice, too.
The challenges and demand for equality is what brought me to the Human Rights Campaign and the Business Council. Until an inclusive ENDA is passed there is much work to be done for America to fulfill her promise to all citizens, and I am proud to partner with HRC to help advance change and jointly champion an inclusive ENDA. Meanwhile my work with the HRC Business Council gives executives in corporate America the tools they need to drive LGBT workplace equality. I am proud that HRC has helped over 195 corporations earn 100% on the current Corporate Equality Index. But there is still more to be done and additional changes and qualifications will be made to the CEI to drive further inclusivity to support the spectrum of LGB and specifically Transgender needs such as therapy, hormones, surgeries to name a few. In spite of challenges and setbacks that were dealt to us last year, we need to find and come together on common ground, with discussion, truth and a clear sense of community purpose. To me our struggle to gain equality is similar to mine to gain American citizenship. To be a citizen confers absolutely the rights of our Constitution, which protect an individual’s basic freedoms. Yet even as citizens, we do not have equal rights; thus our rights are not absolute. If by the good fortune of a changed Administration and a more fair-minded House and Senate we get a fully inclusive ENDA, we can then breathe a sigh of relief as all of us will have worked hard and attained these rights by the rites of equality.
So we are here to celebrate equality. Equality – that to some extent has been led by the state of California for many years and often provocatively so by the people and city of San Francisco. We are so lucky to have a number of local sponsors with us this evening that we’d like to recognize for their leadership for equality….
I will update this entry with Joe’s statements if I can get them.
The point of including all this here is not to criticize. It is to recognize that change happens from Outside, and from Inside. The people at the Left OUT Party made their point loud and clear. But our trans brother and sister who spoke from the stage, at significant risk, did so because they believe that they can help change to happen from the inside. Somehow, I know what that feels like.
“Just last month, I was honored to testify before Congress in an historic hearing about the need for gender identity and expression inclusion in federal non-discrimination employment laws. When I testified, I needed the whole team – ACLU, HRC, NCLR, NCTE, and The Task Force, – to be connected, prepared, rehearsed and successful.
In my testimony, I talked about my friend Ethan St. Pierre, an extremely qualified employee whose lost his job over for no other reason than because he identified as transgender and was brave and honest enough to disclose it.”
I’ll have more to say when my head stops buzzing, but for now:
How inclusive.
Over at
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6481
in the comments:
63 year old lesbian dragged out of event.
What follows is what a friend wrote me late last night:
Around 7:00 I sat at table #72 (which was in the back row). I listened to Diego Sanchez’s speech. During Joe Solomonese’s talk I left my seat and walked towards the tables in front of me with the intent of distributing printed materials. At this point 2-3 large men accosted me. I don’t remember their exact words but I quietly said that I had bought a ticket and had the right to be there. I began to place printed material on a table when I was grabbed roughly by at least 2 men (who I think were behind me). One of them put my right arm in an armlock behind my back and up and bent my right wrist with tremendous force. I was also held by both arms (with force enough around both upper arms that I had bruises within 20 minutes).
At some point I was knocked to the ground and dragged out of the dining area into the outer room where they lifted me to my feet but did not let go. I then said to them-”let me go I will leave (we were walking to a stairwell). They did not let go and dragged me off my feet again and down the stairs to the exit on post street.”
I have huge bruises on my arms and a shoulder that feels like it was half pulled out of it’s socket. Years ago I was thrown out of the st francis by SFPD and they didn’t hurt me at all. These are a company of private goons hired by Human Rights Campaign to police their event.
HRC is afraid of peoples’ protests and they can’t afford their donors getting information.
Smoke and Mirrors same old tactic HRC always uses Look supportive if possible get a Trans person to toot Joes horn and tell how wonderful and supportive he is and Hoooooow hard he’s working for full Inclustion… What a load of crap… HRC as two faced now as they’ve ever been. And what di you mean that our trans brothers and sister talked to t he crowd at great risk… what risk the risk of the HRC bouncers tossing them to if they gotta out of line or didn’t read what had been wrote for them ? As for JOE it time for him to GO ! I hope the people attending this side show weren’t fooled into giving the HRC more money to finance there unequality Campain. Donna your sounding softer and softer by the day wouldn’t surprise me to read how your next job’s right back at the HRC Mothership.
Brandi Parker
SWVA Rep Equality Va
I rarely, if ever, respond to comments. However, I feel a need to clarify something to Brandi.
Both Diego and Meghan are dear friends. They believe what they are doing is right. Whether I agree with what they’ve done, or with what they said, is immatarial in that regard and I will not critize them here for it. I continue to love and respect them, and I refuse to allow all this “stuff” to get in the way of our friendships. I would not have said what they said – that’s a given – but that’s why they’re there and I’m gone. In fact, if you saw the bullet point list of what I’d say I think you’d take back your comment about becoming “soft” (I actually appreciated that, by the way) – the word “betrayal” was featured prominently. But the fact of the matter is that Diego and Meghan made choices that they feel are right and will now need to deal with the implications. They took a risk of becoming targets for just this kind of criticism simply for being there. I’m sure they’ll get a lot of it. But although it’s not my place to defend them – they’ll need to do that (or not) for themselves – they won’t get any of it from me.
I’d like to chime in here, having personally been in attendance of the “Left-out” HRC protest last night. Although the rumor on the street last night was Diego had canceled attending, but I for one, am glad he didn’t … especially with that speech. Nice job and well done, Diego!
I would also like to state, as one of the United ENDA California council members, I had recommended that we attend BOTH the gala AND the protest in order to take the high ground and begin to build bridges. Alas, I was-out voted and they decided not to officially make their presence known at all. Too bad, it would have been a great opportunity.
However, the protest/party/after-dinner last night was well attended and probably exceeded 250 people at one point. I’m sure our voices OUTSIDE where heard and felt INSIDE … and obviously the catalyst for two FINE speeches. I believe we worked TOGETHER last night, with Diego and Megan on STAGE, and us on the STREET… a TEAM that made themselves heard in way that could NOT have been done otherwise.
I am proud to have part of that history last night, and I personally believe we will now begin to see some real change at the HRC … We haven’t left them much choice.
Donna When I said you were getting “soft ” what I mean was your anger over the ENDA and the HRC Betrayal has faded and you seem ready to cozy back up to Joe and his cronies and board the HRC Mothership once again. A Tale Of Two Communities: The HRC SF Gala
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the
epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of
Darkness….” — Charles Dickens, A Tale Of Two Cities
The Haves. The Have-Nots. Sexual Orientation. Gender Identity. Gay and Lesbian.
Transgender. Distinct, disparate, disengaged and mutually distrustful. It was
likely not intended to be this way, shouldn’t be this way, but such is how we
find it in this period of social and economic malaise.
San Francisco, the capital of Gay America, is set to host a banquet for the
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who (despite the generic, non-descriptive sounding
name) is the largest and most widely known and press-worthy gay and lesbian
organization in the nation. While they advertise themselves as “transgender” as
well, it’s not a sentiment shared by the overwhelming majority of the trans
community. It’s gotten so bad that even former transgender allies of theirs have
taken to joining the ranks of the disenchanted, calling them “liars” and
“immoral.”
This San Francisco visit is different, though. Nowadays, many of the gay and
lesbian community’s movers and shakers, and a large swath of the long-since
unified and enlightened within the gay and lesbian community are also in league
with the trans protesters. Indeed, HRC’s store in the Castro has been protested
and the organization was nominated for a Pink Brick Award, the gay and lesbian
community’s equivalent of a “Razzy Award” from the Bay Area Reporter. That’s not
good news, especially coming from HRC’s primary constituency.
However, HRC is doing their best to spin it, and put on the good face. In an
attempt to blunt the criticism, they’ll bring a trans man – Diego Sanchez, fresh
from testifying before Congress last month – to speak to the gather. For his
efforts, HRC will use him as their shield to take the brunt of the vitriolic
barrage. Knowing Diego as I do, I know his intentions are true. That said, he
will nevertheless be savaged by those of his own who don’t know better and used
by JoeSo and company to keep themselves safe and sound as much as possible.
So tonight, it’ll be another splashy, high-profile (and high-dollar) soiree
replete with haute cuisine and couture and a few star-studded special guests to
speak (beyond the now begrudgingly obligatory trans speaker). They’ll dine, rub
elbows and party fabulously, as is customary. Nary a thought will be given of
the protesters who, this time, will be a bonafide, clamoring throng.
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=37048@kpix.dayport.com
“I have had unformed ideas of striving afresh, beginning anew, shaking off sloth
and sensuality, and fighting out the abandoned fight. A dream, all a dream, that
ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to
know that you inspired it.” — Charles Dickens, A Tale Of Two Cities
Meanwhile, the transgender community has lost patience and any faith in the
national political leaders of the gay and lesbian personified by HRC. The
protesters will then repair, along with more egalitarian local gay community
leaders such as State Rep. Mark Leno, and City Council members Tom Ammiano and
Bevan Dufty to their own private dinner away from, and absent of the glitz and
glamour.
It is fitting symbolism. For many years, whether outwardly spoken or guardedly
unspoken, HRC and their ilk have established a separatism and classism between
the ranks of the connected and disenfranchised elements within the gay and
lesbian community. There was no coordinated hue and cry to the public as by
doing so against the connected gay and lesbian leadership would by extension
work against themselves.
As transgenders finally came to visibility, these power brokers broadly did
likewise with the whole of the trans community. About this time, more of those
previously disenfranchised factions began remaking themselves during
“nelly-and-butchophobia,” and worked in some cases to lift themselves out of the
morass into newly becoming part of the connected. Meanwhile he “khaki crowd” had
a new, more alien these in these upstart trans people.
One thing HRC did not count on the trans community’s refusal to be squelched and
muzzled. We were never included in the early years, and had nothing – thus,
nothing to lose! The socioeconomic disparities are extreme between the two
overall communities, and the violence, systemic harassment and lack of redress
are notably more severe and hard to ignore once the spotlight fixes on it.
As time went on, HRC took a notion of finding the few more fortunate individuals
in the trans community and bringing them into the inner circle, hoping to
placate the trans community as a whole. As an added bonus, they would take for
themselves the de facto ownership of PR on trans issues in the media, and work
to beef up their fundraising now with their adopted cause of “trans advocacy” –
with neither trans guidance nor approval, mind you.
That venture failed miserably.
HRC, in essence, stole the voice and left behind a still impoverished and even
more infrastructure-deprived trans community with even less ability to get the
message, the true impact and the sense of urgency out to the world. Not only did
conditions not improve, the violence and lack of opportunity (in this Bush
Economic Recovery) remained and even increased. As a result, and after the most
egregious of manipulations last year with the ENDA support reversal immediately
on the heels of their “promise” to those at Southern Comfort, even the
enlightened among the gay and lesbian community were seeing the ruse. While HRC
still plies its message to the dark corners that haven’t seen the light, as more
of the community – trans as well as gay and lesbian – see the light, their
finding fewer sanctuaries for themselves.
For now, after tonight’s banquet HRC will continue as is and will still work to
rope in more Barnum-babies from the trans community to replace their previous
(now-disillusioned) trans leaders. In contrast, their actions will continue
driving away more of their own gay and lesbian members who are sick (and even a
bit ashamed) of their own community leaders’ hypocrisy and casual heartlessness.
As for the trans community’s rank and file? Jobs and opportunities will continue
being scarce-to-non-existent. The violence and anguish and fear that go along
with it will remain in place, along with the sense of near-helplessness and
mounting frustration. There will be no vacations, no high-dollar dinners, no
political appointees or electees, no circuit parties … and really not much fear
about marriage rights as the primary concern is merely surviving. Yes, even in
the 21st century, that’s a tenuous proposition still – especially for
transgenders. To wit: Angie Zapata in Greeley, CO just a week ago.
We may not have allowance to be heard, but we still have the voice with which to
scream. And so it goes ….
………………. In Memory of Angie Zapata
I hate to disappoint you, Kate but the only changes you are seeing at HRC is a nice polished act complete with tap dancers.
But, you’ll be reading about that soon enough…
Kate, thank you for your comment. I agree 100%
As a community, we have got to stop attacking ourselves, and begin the slow but very needed process of healing. HRC needs people on the inside with this same passion – people who can help Congress understand why all legislation absolutely must have protections that include gender identity.
I was on the inside last night at the San Francisco Gala, and I too, believe the voices on the inside and outside were both heard last night, and hope the voices come together as one.
I hope the protest brought attention and really shone a spotlight on why transgender people deserve the same protections as everyone else. I also hope that over time, that same energy and passion that drove the protest can drive other things, like education, outreach, and lobbying of Congress.
Donna,
Thank you for that report and the short film. It is always good that we stay in cvommunication with what is happening at these dinners and continue to put pressure on HRC to change.
I am sorry that your meeting with Mr. Solomonese did not bear any useful news around some of the points that I made earlier in a post and I am sorry that he cannot provide any proof about what HRC is actually doing besides hiring a Trans person, which should have been done years ago in the first place.
I repeat my question about “Where’s the beef”. Why, after 11 months can’t HRC show us just one legislator whose mind they have changed about an inclusive ENDA from last year. We need less “tokenism” from them and more actual gains from their lobbying efforts. If those efforts are being made at all.
I repeat my question to HRC about why we have a Presidential Candidate who does beleive in an inclusive ENDA, yet a whole bunch of Democrats, including Pelosi from CA, who seem unable to wrap their minds around the word equality enough to truly understand what it means.
And a bit of prophesizing here. This time next year, it will be very evident where HRC still stands on an inclusive ENDA and if they will throw Barney Frank and his phony straw polls under the bus instead of our community. Those who use the excuse of working on the inside, no matter how well intentioned and trying to get the job done. will have no place to run if ENDA gets passed without us and HRC doesn’t do the job they say they will. And we will know because of those who would rather vote for an inclusive ENDA. They will tell us.
In other words, next year will be when the chickens come home to roost. Those who have sided with HRC during this period of the last two years will have a real hard time getting up and speaking for this community at an venue. If ENDA does not pass as inclusive on the next try, they would have been betrayed again by HRC, as we all, but there won’t be any leniency or talk of hero’s and moral committment or dreams being dashed. There will be a break that occurs that no one will be able to fix. Of course, I believe that is exactly what HRC wanted in the first place. Rumors of HRC people in DC talking about cutting the Trans community right out of the picture and having nothing to do with them after an exclusive ENDA passes seem all to true from where I stand. This entire scenario smacks of politicial maneuvering and the eventual abandonment of the Trans Community on the basis of “they are to disunifyinig and who the heck needs them anyway”? We both know that this has been said by HRC people.
I would think that since Diego, etc. are your friends, that you might warn them about exactly what they are lining themselves up for. I know a few years ago at SCC I stood up to tell you that HRC would dissapoint you because you are a friend. Letting them get betrayed in the same way that you and Jamison did, is not what friends let happen.
There has to be a place and time when the line is drawn and those still in bed with HRC are measured as to their basic common sense. That day will happen before 2010. I hope they can work miracles from the inside, but history has proven otherwise.
I’m not criticizing people for going to work with, or for, HRC; only that, having lived the history of HRC’s betrayals of the T community, I cannot trust them, or their lying CEO. If others wish to, good luck to them. My memory’s too long, and one of my uglier tendencies is my nature of holding grudges – and in HRC’s case, those grudges date back to Lizzie Birch, and carry forth to the present “goon squad” treatment of the 63-year-old lesbian described above, by HRC’s hired thugs.
At the same time, there is more to activism than anger. Being mad at HRC is not going to pass an inclusive ENDA. A protest is fine for one night every few weeks, to blow off steam and keep pressure on. But, those who are mad at HRC should also be working to re-elect their supportive Congressman or Senators, or perhaps for their supportive opponents. Only 40-50 votes need change in the House, and speaking to your Congressman is something that everyone can do in their home town. They’ll all be home in August. Let’s make sure they all get to meet some T people.
“It’s not just about the public leadership, but it is also in whom I know Joe to be. He’s a person, not just a president. He the kind of person who participated here in the AIDSLifeCycle from San Fran to LA, and took a break to participate on the LGBT conference call for Obama with 100 miles left to ride. I think I would have needed a NAP – but not Joe. And that is the kind of determination we need leading the fight for our community. ”
Ahem – whew – hot! I nearly had an orgasm reading that. Does he smell really nice too?
I count Diego a friend – but those who believe any of this dog and pony show is more than window dressing please point out to me the change in policy at the HRC? The reasons many people left or didn’t support HRC were duplicity, lack of representation in in positions of power, and not being treated equally in the legislative goals and committments of the organization. There seems zero change in any of those areas since the fall. But we’re expected to change because someone starts a charm offensive? Have we so little self respect? Our relationship with an organization can change – but that requires real change. I’m not seeing any substantive change. I’d love to see it, I’d love to count such a powerful group as a real ally – but until they make real changes – they’re just continuing their strategy of gaming the community to foster their non-inclusive goals.
For those who seem embarrassed by the peasants demanding their rights – the onion describes the kind of action you might approve:
Mob Not Angry At Monster, Just Disappointed
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/mob_not_angry_at_monster_just?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
Karen – I have to say I was at the HRC event this weekend – I was actually sitting very close to what happened – and the way you presented it is not at all how it actually happened. If you’re going to present your case, at least be honest.
To start, I can’t say for sure if your original seat was in the back row or not, but when I saw you, you were seated at a table in the middle. You could have moved there from your original seat though, so I’m not sure on that one.
Secondly, you were not asked to leave because your were passing out flyers. This is what I saw. You began walking quickly towards the stage. I was in the 2nd row from the stage and at this point you were directly to my right, so you were pretty close. As you were to my right, you started shouting loudly “LIAR” and threw a bunch of papers in the air towards the stage. At this point, the security that was standing in the front of the stage walked toward and stood in front of you, blocking you from continuing to move quickly towards Joe on the stage. They asked you to leave because of the disruption you caused and you continued to shout at Joe and try to move towards the stage. At this point they physically had to restrain you because you were trying to push your way through them and continue towards the stage.
They escorted you out of the room at that point. I was watching them as they were doing this and they were actually being pretty gentle. You then continued to yell “They’re hurting me, aren’t any of you going to help me.” When no one responded – because they were watching and seeing security was being more than gentle enough trying to remove a hostile attendee – you then proceeded to yell that we were all cowards.
I can’t speak for security, but the way you were moving towards the stage, my initial thought was you were trying to attack Joe up there. You may not have had any intention of doing so, but as a witness, that’s the way it came across. In my opinion, security did a fine job of removing you.
I have to say I want an all-inclusive ENDA bill passed as well, but I feel the passion and in many cases anger, being presented by protesters like yourself is being completely mis-directed.
HRC has no control over the passing of ENDA. The organization is not the decision maker – the House and Senate are the ones making the decisions. HRC is simply a lobby group trying to persuade them to vote in favor of bills that promote LGBT rights. In this case, whether it was the right decision or not – HRC felt it was the right thing to say they support a non-inclusive ENDA, while continuing to lobby to get the “T” in LGBT included.
If you want to really make a difference, focus all of your passion and energy that you’re focusing on HRC right now, on Congress, to get them to pass an all-inclusive ENDA.
By continuing to protest and threaten HRC, all you’re doing is making the LGBT community come across as destructive and divided to those who already don’t support us. If you don’t think conservatives are loving reading about what you’re doing in the news because it helps their agendas, then you’re not paying attention.
All of your energy and protest will be wasted, because it’s focused on a group that has absolutely no decision-making authority to bring about what you say you want.
If you really want an all-inclusive ENDA – protest Congress.
OMG I’m gonna be sick Pleasezzzzzzzzzzzzz Chris get off the HRC cool aid it’s rotting your brian. You don’t work aboard the HRC Mothership too do you ?….just checking. You’ve gotta be kidding right ? We’re causing the division in the GBLT community Ha !!!! that’s funny !! You sure it wasn’t HRC decssion on ENDA last Sept that caused this most recent split ? As for your ridiculous comment that HRC has nothing to do with how or what bills get passed your showing how little you really known. They have a great deal of influance in Washington thus that’s why thier looked to as the leader of our community they are supose to be the holder of all the GBLT votes but that’s qucikly changing, now that the majority of the GBLT community is tired of thier two faced lying and un- Inclusivness.
Brandi Parker
SWVA Rep Equality Va
Brandi, it definitely sounds like you’ve got some strong emotion on this topic, which is a good thing – I really do think that’s great.
It unfortunately sounds like however, that your emotions are causing you to exaggerate and apply generalizations to what I said. I encourage you to re-read my post when you are less emotionally engaged.
For example, if you re-read my post, you’ll see I never said Transgendered people who are protesting are causing the rift in the LGBT community. What I said is “all you’re doing is making the LGBT community come across as destructive and divided to those who already don’t support us.” In other words, by promoting such hostility towards HRC – an organization that is widely recognized as supporting LGBT rights – you’re creating ammo for people who want to take away our rights (like conservative groups) can use to convince promote their agenda. In other words, right-wing Christian group a can take these things and say see, they don’t even support their own people, why should we support them.
You also say that I said HRC has nothing to do with getting bills like ENDA passed, in fact attacking my intelligence based on your interpretation of what I wrote. If you re-read my post you’ll say that is clearly not what I said. I said HRC has no “control” over passing of bills – that they’re not the “decision maker.” Clearly this is true – HRC does not vote on bills to make them law. Congress does. I actually did say HRC is a lobby group – they are influencers to convince the decision makers (Congress) to vote in favor of LGBT rights.
Finally, in terms of directing your anger at the appropriate parties, you’re directing all of it towards HRC because they agreed to not oppose a non-inclusive ENDA. In fact, Barney Frank proposed this approach because he felt it wouldn’t get passed as an all-inclusive bill. Due to what HRC was hearing with it’s own “ears on the Hill” so to speak, and based on Mr Frank’s reputation, the organization agreed not to publicly state it opposed his approach. If you’re angry, why not be angry at Barney Frank? Why not be angry at the conservative members of Congress who led him to take this approach? Why is all of your anger and hostility directed at HRC? It sounds like you’re making them the scapegoat.
All your protesting of HRC is going to accomplish is to get some people to dislike HRC and not donate to them. If you don’t agree with the way HRC uses its money and clout for LGBT rights – if that’s your core issue – then great, this is the right approach. You’re trying to get people to see HRC negatively because of your experiences with the organization, and if that’s how you truly feel, then again that’s fine, you’re taking the right approach.
But protesting HRC does absolutely nothing to get an inclusive-ENDA proposed and passed. Absolutely nothing. If your goal really is to get the “T” back in ENDA so to speak, you need to focus your protest on the decision makers – Congress. Write your representatives and Senators. Protest in Washington. Get elected to Congress and vote to include it. Otherwise you’re going to do this – again unless getting an inclusive-ENDA is not your main goal.
And by the way, I don’t work for HRC, have not “drank the Kool-Aid,” and really don’t care if you hate them or not. No bias here – just looking at the argument objectively.
Chris:
“By continuing to protest and threaten HRC, all you’re doing is making the LGBT community come across as destructive and divided to those who already don’t support us. If you don’t think conservatives are loving reading about what you’re doing in the news because it helps their agendas, then you’re not paying attention.”
Wouldn’t it be just as correct then to say that HRC is helping those conservative agendas by providing the reason for divisiveness? They didn’t have to agree to support a non-inclusive bill after pledging just the opposite. If as you say, they have no power over a bill passing – the bill would have passed even if they oppossed it. But we both know that it would have never been brought to a vote if HRC wouldn’t have supported it. It would never have been brought to a vote in that form if HRC hadn’t gotten the LCCR to change their position on not leaving transgender people out of it.
It’s not really poor little powerless HRC sitting by doing nothing while bad ole Congress does things they don’t approve of. HRC had to take actions that helped insure that outcome. It came up in committee several times and wasn’t put forward because the community it was to cover oppossed it. Congress would never have passed it if the entire community that was to be covered by the bill stood together. And only one group of any consequence broke that solidarity.
You can’t blame others for not supporting you after you didn’t support them. At least not until you change your policy. If a progressive coalition blamed HRC for breaking solidarity by not supporting them while that coalition didn’t stand up for gay rights – would you be blaming HRC – or cheering them?
Chris;
I posted the article, copy-pasting it from the original link, The name of the woman actually involved in the incident is Catherine Cusic. Now please say what your going to say about my posting her version without verifying it. Tell me how bad it was to post something which turns out to be untrue. I didn’t check the facts. I didn’t want to check the facts, after becoming emotionally involved in ENDA, and then finding out I wasn’t worthy of inclusion. I don’t know if an apology will do any good. Reading what you’ve written, I feel that whether I apologise or no, you will think the same of me for what I did.
Let’s say that unlike Rashomon, your version if the events are truly the way that any rational observer in possession of all the input from the event would conclude they actually occurred. You may say I’ve drank deeply of the far-left kool-aid, but I see that an opportunity was missed by Joe Solomonese to heal the rift between the gender-conforming gays and lesbians, and the non-gender-conforming who would have been protected had the gender identity text been left in ENDA, had it passed both houses of congress and been signed into law by the president.
That opportunity was for Joe to actually speak to her and with her. If she were a fundamentalist, that would have been quickly apparent, and Joe could have asked her to leave — followed by security taking reasonable action to see it happen. But, we know she was a transgender activist. Joe could have spoken with her. I would hope he’d take the opportunity to apologise to her. I firmly believe that such an apology would reach the gender-nonconforming community in a big way, and would do much to seal the rift that was opened when the gender-nonconforming were booted off of ENDA.
For that’s what the gender-nonconforming community is looking for. An apology. And actions that assure us that HRC is really there for the “T” in LGBT.
I was collecting interviews for a podcast while you were enjoying the cocktail hour. I asked two questions: If HRC is unrelenting on the incrementalist strategy, what do you feel HRC should do for the TG community to make up for leaving them out? And: If HRC commits right now and forever more to only supporting legislation that is inclusive of everyone (including transgender,) do you feel that’s enough, or should there be further atonement for having yet again left the transgenders behind? I left the raw audio with those who will cut the podcast.
It’s about listening, Chris. Will you listen to the T community? Will you come to know those represented by the letter T, and see them worthy of inclusion? I don’t see that happening. If you think Ts played a minor or no role in Stonewall, and are only just now coming out of the shadows and have yet to pay our dues, you are wrong.
I helped spread a rumor. I shouldn’t have done it. Shall we leave it at “I misspoke,” and call it even?
Oh, Chris, a P.S. I’ve donated to EqualityForAll.com to help the coming battle to defeat California Proposition 8. It’s the right thing to do.
Chris,
We cannot ignore the fact that Joe/HRC lied to us. That makes them equally responsible. They gave low scores to Congress people who voted against the non-inclusive bill. Does that sound like they’re innocent? They treat trans people like second-class citizens and are willing to have us arrested if one of us opposes them. I almost was arrested in Jan of this year handing out flyers at the front of an HRC event. Is that the act of an innocent organization? HRC doesn’t get a free pass because Frank is an ass. They have their own set of stupid moves to account for, seperate from what Frank has to answer to. They also have 15 years of unchanged history of poor treatment of trans people to answer for. Do we sweep that under the rug? I think not.
Hi Karen – no need to apologize and I’m definitely glad you’ve supported EqualityForAll – that was what the whole HRC event was supposed to be about.
I have talked with some transgendered people and believe me, I want you all to be included in not just ENDA, but all non-discrimination as well. Not being transgendered, it’d be naive of me to say I want it as much as you do, but I do want it.
All I’m saying with all of this is that I think a lot of the anger and protest is being mis-directed at HRC. Barney Frank proposed the non-inclusive ENDA bill because from what he was hearing/seeing on The Hill, he didn’t think an inclusive bill would get passed. So his thought was, let’s at least get rights for 75% of our constituents while we continue to work to get rights for the remaining 25%. HRC agreed not to oppose his strategy, with the understanding that if they did oppose him, they would have burnt bridges with some of their supporters in Congress and as a result, been less effective at lobbying for other issues. Could they have stood up anyway – sure they could have. But it would have been much more damaging to their ability to promote gay rights in Congress than good.
What I’m saying is, if you really want an inclusive ENDA to pass, then protest Congress. If however, your core issue is that you’re upset with HRC and don’t want people to support them, then protesting HRC is the right thing to do.
As an “outsider,” it’s confusing because you say what you want is an inclusive ENDA and protesting HRC is not going to do anything to bring about that goal.
Honestly, as a gay man, if the “G” were left off of the bill, based on what I know about the situation, I’d understand the strategy, as long as I knew the fight was continuing to get the “G” included.
Regarding Catherine, if she had protested in a civil matter, yes I’d agree Joe could have spoken with her. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but Joe was receiving threats that he’d be physically attacked at the event. If you were there, and saw how Catherine was running towards the stage and yelling, I can only speak for myself, but I thought that’s what she was trying to do, and was glad security removed her.
Monica – so from reading your post it sounds like your core issue is not getting an inclusive ENDA passed, but that you don’t trust HRC as an organization and don’t feel the organization is doing enough to support you.
If HRC really is your core issue, then by all means protesting them is the right decision.
As I said to Karen, it’s confusing as someone who’s not transgendered, because your protests sound like your main goal is to get an inclusive ENDA bill passed. But protesting HRC is not going to achieve that goal, because HRC doesn’t vote on the bill. If instead your issue is with HRC and not ENDA, then it might be helpful to change the message of your protest so that the general public understands what you’re protesting.
I do not work for HRC and am happy with the work they do overall to support LGBT rights, but I wouldn’t call myself a supporter either. I attended the event to support friends and support opposition of Prop 8. Even if you absolutely hate HRC, I’d hope you’d want to support Prop 8.
Kathy – HRC didn’t actually agree to support a non-inclusive ENDA bill – they agreed to note oppose Barney Frank in proposing it, because opposing THE member of Congress who does the most to promote gay rights would be damaging to the capabilities HRC has to influence Congress. You may not see a difference (i.e. a lie of omission is still a lie) – but politically it is a big difference.
Personally, looking at the big picture, I think that was the right decision, knowing that they intend to work with Mr Frank to push for inclusion of Transgendered people. Can I see how transgendered people would be pissed and feel left out – I sure can.
What I’m saying is direct that anger, frustration, and emotion at Congress to get them to be more supportive of an inclusive bill.
If however, your core issue is that you don’t trust HRC, don’t want to support the organization, and want to influence other people to not support the organization, than protesting HRC is the right decision. It all depends on what your core issue and main goal are.
And honestly, if the situation were reversed and they weren’t able to get inclusion for gay men now, but were continuing to push for our inclusion, knowing what I know about the situation, I’d get it and would support it. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but I’d support it.
And by the way I don’t work for HRC and am not a supporter either. My only donation to HRC has been the gala, because I support opposition of Prop 8. I’m an average gay citizen who’s confused by the message the transgendered community is sending.
Chris, you said: “Honestly, as a gay man, if the “G” were left off of the bill, based on what I know about the situation, I’d understand the strategy, as long as I knew the fight was continuing to get the “G” included.”
This isn’t really a fair comparison since the number of “G” people far outweigh the number of “T” people, and thus have a greater voice in terms of promoting follow-up legislation.
Chris:
Of course HRC supported the non-inclusive bill – they even ginned up that poll that was refuted within the week by – …….. an HRC ongoing poll that wasn’t ginned up in done collaboration with Hunter College. HRC took active steps to pass the non-inclusive bill – and did so in duplicitous ways that harmed the transgender community. Unless you think ginning up a poll that said 78% of the lgbt community didn’t support inclusion when you knew that 70% ? did support inclusion assited in having Congress recognise transgender peoples equality or the political ripeness for recognising our equality.
And of course people are right to express their displeasure with a civil rights organization that lies to them and doesn’t treat them as equals. Even Joe said:
“We are out of step with the rest of the organizations”
Asked how other groups represented at the meeting – including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), and the National Stonewall Democrats – viewed the decision reached, Solmonese, in an early evening telephone interview, said, “In no way would I characterize others as embracing this.”
I do hope others here won’t accept your advice that they should express anger towards members of Congress. As Rep. Frank said about expressing anger towards Congress:
Frank, at an October 11 press conference said, “The anger is very counterproductive and it’s going to make it hard to mobilize support in the future.”
HRC has the tools to turn this around. But they have to be serious. They’ve had nearly 8 months to show their ability to change – and haven’t yet impressed the audience.
Hi Kathy – thank you for your follow-up. I’d be interested in seeing more information about the survey you mentioned, including its sample size, target audience, etc.
Your post clears things up a bit for me as well. What I hear you saying is that your main issue is not that the Transgendered community was not included in the ENDA bill that was proposed. It sounds like your main issue is with HRC – that you feel the organization has lied to the transgendered community and has not done enough to promote rights for it. If that is in fact the case, then your protests of HRC make much more sense to me.
Regarding focusing anger towards Congress, I have to disagree with you and Mr Frank one one condition . Anger generates a ton of energy. That energy has to come out somehow – you can’t just bottle it up and keep it inside. You can release that energy in positive or negative ways.
As long as you’re able to focus that energy and use it in a positive way to enact change, I see nothing wrong with that. For example, use that energy to write letters to Congress, organize peaceful protests, etc.
Now if you use that anger to do something negative like physically attack members of Congress, of course that’s not going to help.
That said, I have heard and seen a lot of what I would consider “negative anger” focused at HRC over the ENDA issue – how do you feel about that? For example, I’ve had some transgendered people on blogs like this insult and ridicule me because I don’t agree with their stance on the issue and instead agree with HRC. Instead of trying to educate me, they’ve just called me names and said I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I’ve also seen some people at protests who were obviously very angry, insulting people walking by, etc.
How do you feel about these “negative” actions by members of the Transgendered community?
An honest question to pose – are the needs of the Transgendered community different enough from the gay/lesbian community that they warrant having their own political organizations to push for their rights? Are these rifts arising because an organization like HRC can’t make the G and L’s and the T’s all happy at the same time?
I honestly mean no disrespect by that question and base it on my own lack of robust experience with the transgendered community. From what I understand, being transgendered is not about sexual orientation at all, but about how you identify yourself from a gender perspective. Do those needs fit with needs based on sexual orientation?
Karen – true, very good point.
It sounds like then that you’re upset because you feel HRC has let the Transgendered community down by not being supportive enough of it, not just with this issue, but with other issues in the past. And that the Transgendered community doesn’t have enough support for its issues in the first place. It also sounds like there’s a lack of trust for HRC among the transgendered community.
Are those fair statements?
If those are all true, then I agree that your protests of HRC as an organization are justified. What I’ve been confused about is that if the issue is not being included in the ENDA bill, protesting Congress makes more sense because they have the power to vote an inclusive bill into law.
See the question I posed to Kathy as well – are the needs of the Transgendered community different enough that they warrant having their own organization to drive them?
The Hunter College Poll can be found here (scroll down):
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/news/2007.shtml
When asked about the proposed federal law making it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in employment, LGBs (by a margin of 60 to 37 percent) said that those seeking to pass the law were wrong to remove protections for transgendered people in order to get the votes necessary for passage in Congress.
The ginned up poll:
Polling experts are questioning a recent Human Rights Campaign survey that asked gays about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The survey’s results, circulated last month by HRC when many gays were locked in heated debate over the measure’s lack of transgender protections, show most people who responded support the bill as written.
But John Stahura, who specializes in survey research and directs the Purdue University Social Research Institute, said the survey’s methodology is problematic.
“They’re playing games,” he said after reviewing survey excerpts at the Blade’s request. “It doesn’t make sense.”
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=15436
I should also note that HRC penalised Congressmen it its Congressional scorecard if they only supported the inclusive bill. They were all obviously 100% rated people – before they supported the inclusive bill.
I really don’t see our our needs as regards non-discrimination legislation are different. Or for relationship rights, adoption, hate crimes or immigration rights. One might argue that given the importance of gender & the importance of pay disparity – there are many issues where transgender people & lesbians have more in common than either have with gay men.
The overlap of issues has been real for a very long time – here’s an older example:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5523
And yes – there are some specifically transgender orgs (Like NCTE in DC) – just as there are some other specific orgs like the National Center for Lesbian Rights (where Transman Shannon Minter is the legal director.He argued the California marriage equality case before the CA Supreme Court – not a small victory for gay folks)., BiNet and the Gay Mens Health Crisis. Which brings me to anger – none of our protests can hold candle to ActUp!. I’m quite capable of both trying to change HRC & trying to change laws. One might argue that (on the national level) – at this point in time – one is a precondition for the other.
I’d also observe that given how many gay folks see their orientation as having a physical basis – often pointing to brain structure studies that show sex-revered brain structures – how very similar that is to transsexuals who say their gender identity has a physical basis – often pointing to ses-reversed brian structures. Indeed – it’s easier to conceptualize a gay sexual orientation as a subcategory of transgender under those terms than as completely unrelated.
Kathy – surveys are definitely tricky things. It’s very easy to “lead” a survey to produce the results you’re looking for, despite your best intentions. For example, the Hunter College survey asked the question:
A bill is currently pending before Congress that would make it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in employment. The bill originally included protections for transgendered people, but these protections were removed in the interest of getting enough votes to pass the bill this year.
This question over-simplifies the issue a bit. I’d argue if the average person had never heard of the issue before and this is all they knew, they’d be more likely to say “that’s not right, it should be inclusive.” For example, it says nothing about the fact that our supporters in Congress and organizations like HRC are still doing everything they can to get Transgendered included in the bill. It also says nothing about the “politics” going on behind the scenes that a political strategist might say makes sense to take the approach they did.
Totally agreed on the biological basis for both homosexuality and being transgendered. And I agree I think an organization can try to address the issues for G, L, B, and T at a high level, with organizations specific to those groups promoting their needs at a more detailed level.
Totally agreed you can try to change HRC and Congress at the same time – I think that’s great. I can say though, as someone who’s not transgendered, the T community’s message has been very confusing to me as an “outsider.” It’s been received by myself and other GLB’s I know as being angry and just wanting to attack HRC, which many of us still see as an organization supporting our rights.
For example, it’s come across in some cases as the T community not wanting the GLBs to have rights because they haven’t been able to get them yet. I’m all for fighting the fight for the T’s – I fully agree you NEED to be included in any anti-hate legislation. But I don’t see anything wrong with a phased approach, and it comes across as hurtful to me that you wouldn’t at least want to see 75% of us get rights, while we continue to fight for you.
It’d be helpful to see a clearer, more consistent message of:
- We want to change HRC to be more like this, because of this, and this is what we propose to do about it, and this is what we ask you to do to help us.
- We want Congress to do this, because of this, and this is what we propose to do about it, and this is what we ask you to do to help us.
I think it’s the clarity of the message in terms of what actually is wanted and the strategy to get it that’s missing.