-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/americas-first-transgender-mayor.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I've long said, (and long been excoriated) for suggesting that lumping G, L, B and T together on all advocacy issues does not always make sense. Certainly we should work for justice for all. But my issues are not always the same or compatible with issues that say a lesbian woman or transgendered man might find most important.
Think of it this way: the Democratic Party is often unfocused, too, which is why it has trouble winning elections. Do you think it would work better if the party split into smaller sub-parties, though? Or would that give the Republicans the permanent majority they want?
There are bisexuals who only ever have same-sex partners. There are gay people who try to have a go at the straight world and get married. Better get specific about who gets excluded from your little advocacy club.
As for Transgender, I'm not transgendered, I'm "gay" in the sense that I have a same-sex partner (technically I'm "bi").
I'm one of those people who has never been discriminated against for having or wanting same-sex partners, but I HAVE been discriminated against (at work, yet) because of gender-nonconformity.
So even if, for example, ENDA has passed, it would not have protected me unless it included "gender identity/expression."
I'm not saying there's no argument for passing a limited ENDA ASAP and a trans-inclusive one as soon as possible after that, I'm just sayin' that they're a lot of fey gays and butch lesbians who would be left out in the cold unless they did.
So, "radically different issues"? Not so much.
But that is not our fault. And arguing that I can't marry the person I love because I could "just as easily" fall for someone of the opposite sex (and it's really not that simple, actually) would be an excellent argument for arranged marriages.
Why should someone marry the person they love, when they could just as easily fall for someone else?
Why should we allow freedom of religion when all people person could "choose" to be Christians?
"I can't help it" is a poor basis on which to build a civil rights argument. Because the haters just come back and compare you to an alcoholic say "you may not be able to control what you'd rather have, but you can control what you do."
And then you're back to square one.
And how are you defining "bisexual" anyway? Someone who's ever been with the opposite sex for whatever reason? Someone who yet might someday? Someone who could fall in love with either? (Would you exclude the Brokeback Mountain guys, because they had wives?)
Gettin' pretty lonely in your Gay Purity country club, there.
Transgender folks have paid dearly for their support of gay issues, because they are often more visible, and more viciously targeted. Don't ever play down their contribution to gay advocacy.
I understand the legalistic argument that says gender identity/expression is unique from sexual orientation, but many fey gays and butch lesbians (and those perceived as such) get the same kind of shitty treatment that transfolk do, and that would not end with laws protecting only "gay mens' sexual orientation."
All Prop 8 targeted was "same sex marriages." You think it would have gone differently if there were a "gay men (who've never, ever had an opposite sex partner for any reason) only" advocacy group?
Talk about deflecting the blame.
The CA supreme court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage was never about "gay" rights. It's about "equal" rights, and the right to not be discriminated against based on gender. In other words, the gender of one's partner should not factor in to the laws about marriage.
People only think women kissing is hot if they're both fem. Butch lesbians? Think again.
The boyfriend and I were just having conversation along those lines with regards to a gay or lesbian president being elected in our lifetime. Glad to see that day has possibly gotten just a bit closer.
"We should have got nasty a long time ago," said Mr Lindsey, who is originally from a Mormon family. "I'm not going to be polite any more, I'm not going to step around my belief that this is a nasty church with disgusting views which managed to buy an election. I don't care if it's people's religion. I'm going to stand up and fight it."
Thursday's protest, which gridlocked traffic in Hollywood for the second consecutive day, was mostly disciplined, with police reporting two arrests. Seven people were detained at a demonstration on Wednesday.
For the Mormon Church, it threatens a PR nightmare. The gay rights lobby boasts scores of prominent celebrity supporters who have already pledged vociferous support to the campaign to overturn Proposition 8.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america...
Uncounted ballots unlikely to reverse Proposition 8
Even with 2.7 million outstanding ballots statewide -- some mail-in and some provisional -- the odds aren't in favor of beating out the gay-marriage ban's lead of more than half a million votes.
6:11 PM PST, November 8, 2008
...Roughly 2.7 million ballots from Tuesday's election remained to be counted statewide as of late Friday, according to the California secretary of state's office.
Flowers has said his religion is "very important" in his life, but told a recent interviewer that he took a liberal position on gay rights. Osmond opposes gay marriage, but claims on his website that this doesn't make him homophobic. "I do support our church leaders who say that we can accept those with gay tendencies in our church, as long as they do not act upon their temptations."
Jim Key, a spokesman for the LA Gay and Lesbian Centre which organised last week's protest, said he hoped followers would distinguish between Mormon businesses that did not donate to Proposition 8 and those that did. "Our complaint is not against all Mormons," he said. "Many moderate members of the church did not support Proposition 8. Our issue is with the church's leadership, which ran a despicable campaign to deny us fundamental rights."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america...
Although I would say that no media attention surrounding Stu Russmusen decision would be a definate sign of the change within American society, I still applaud the relatively positive media attention she has received.
It seems progress is being made, particularly after the bill passed in Oregon in 2007 to give gay and lesbian people most of the benefits of marriage under state law and to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Let's just say being considered a "sissy" or "girly" is a fate worse than death for men. Women who act or dress like men are seen as heroes, for chrissakes! Women are encouraged to be more like men--men are never encouraged to be more like women. One of the draws for the right about Palin was her ability to get out there and shoot animals--just like the boys--in a skirt and high heels, too.
I'm always amused at gay men who try to be more "macho" than others...certainly lesbians aren't out here trying to be the most "feminine." Would there be a point?