Burnt Orange Report: - Transgender

We Didn't Win Everything. Still, We Won.

DyspepTex — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:30:24 GMT

This is a repost from the Equality Texas blog at EqualityTexas.org. But don't worry, I'll hang around.

Last night the LGBT and allied community suffered through some agonizing election returns. We won some. We lost a big one. How do you evaluate such a mixed bag of election results across the nation? Then, how do you apply those lessons to the movement for equality in general?

It's not as hard as you think.

We won.

No, we didn't win everything. The big prize of marriage in Maine got away. Still, we won. Let's take stock.

Below the fold.....
The anti-discrimination ordinance (employment/public accommodation) in Kalamazoo, Michigan: Won that one, clearly, 62% to 38%. Kalamazoo is a small town (there were only 12,500 voters), of uncertain progressive character. It is more akin to some places in Texas than you might think. Yet, voters overwhelmingly backed protections for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. Generally, U.S. voters think it's wrong to discriminate against people PERIOD. In Texas, the Kalamazoo ordinance is basically the same as Rep. Mike Villarreal's HB 538 (workplace nondiscrimination) and Rep. Jessica Farrar's HB 2215 (nondiscrimination in housing and public accommodation) filed during the last Legislative Session. What little polling that has been done in Texas on this issue, shows Texas voters supporting these protections in the 50-80% range. Yes, even the low approval numbers have us winning on this in Texas. Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and El Paso all have similar, or more limited protections.

Washington State: Referendum 71 - "Everything But Marriage." Right now, it looks like we won that one, too. It was a statewide vote and (as of Wednesday morning) the Referendum is narrowly ahead with predictions that it will keep that lead. Essentially, the Referendum would grant same-sex couples the same rights as married couples (that is, all the rights except the ability to call themselves married). Think hospital visitation rights, family medical leave, inheritance rights, child custody, insurance benefits, etc.--you know, all those things that make living life as a family practical but are mostly denied in Texas. Those rights passed in Washington. Similar Texas efforts include Rep. Donna Howard's HB 1455 (enforcing medical directives), Rep. Eddie Rodriguez's HB 353 (hospital visitation), Rep. Elliott Naishtat's HB 861 (competitive insurance benefits for UT and A&M faculty and staff), and Rep. Rafael Anchia's HB 2080 (allowing both same sex parents on a child's birth certificate). All these have a good deal of support in the Texas Legislature. While Referendum 71 lost in the rural eastern portion of Washington, it passed in the more urban western part-which is a lesson for how equality will be achieved in Texas.

Also of note in yesterday's election are the new gay mayor in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and first openly gay elected official in St. Petersburg, Florida. In Houston, Annise Parker was the top vote getter in a four way race for mayor. Parker is now headed into a runoff and could become the first openly lesbian mayor of any of the top 25 most populous cities in the U.S. What is important about these races is that a candidates' sexual orientation is no longer a bar to holding office. People can win not because, or despite, their sexual orientation, but without regard to it at all.

In passing, did you notice that Austin just extended COBRA type benefits to city employees and their partners. And El Paso now offers domestic partner benefits to its employees?
And then there is Maine. Yes, we lost. Voters overturned a state legislative decision to allow same-sex couples the same marriage rights as everyone else. And by "we lost", I mean every person living in the United States. Maine's loss was a step back for equality, for human rights, and for the underlying dignity of every human being in this country. How can we hold our heads up when so many voters continue to hold such backwards, bigoted attitudes towards the relationships of other people that they vote to deny those other people the right to marry whom they love? It's hard, I know.

The vote in Maine was a sign post on the road to equality. Sure, the voters overturned marriage equality, but it wasn't a resounding victory for the forces of darkness. It was hardly a blow out. The final vote difference was in the low single digits. In fact, until late in the night, the marriage equality forces were winning. And it wasn't an "organic" victory-one in which the other side won without campaigning and on the moral and logical force of their argument. The other side won only with a huge effort, an influx of out of state money, and wildly deceitful claims in their advertisements. Maine was hardly a victory to soothe those who would deny others equality. Rather, it must necessarily be seen as a temporary setback to our side and the last hurrah of the narrow minded. Demographics are on our side. We will achieve marriage equality, it's just not happening as fast as we all would like it to happen.

Don't view the Maine vote in a vacuum, either. The Maine election was not a referendum that came out of the blue. It was an effort to overturn the positive act of the Maine Legislature that recognized marriage equality. The leaders in Maine get it. As do the folks in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa. All people should be treated equally. And a 52% rejection of a legislative act in Maine is not a resounding rejection, it's a difference of opinion. It is unlikely that any Maine legislator will pay a price at the polls during the next election for their support of equality. And no legislator will be scared from voting for other, frequently more popular pro-equality measures like non-discrimination, hospital visitation, anti-bullying harassment requirements for schools, equal adoption rights, etc.

Did you notice that neither of the U.S. Senators from Maine, both supposedly moderate Republicans, would say how they voted. Both were too scared, or too cautious, to take sides in the battle. Shame on them. But, when a sitting Republican elected official is too scared, or ashamed, to take a public stand against marriage equality you can bet that the days of using anti-gay measures as voter turnout mechanisms are drastically numbered.

And that should be a lesson for Texas. The days of institutionalizing anti-lgbt hatred and bigotry are extremely numbered. Sure, conservatives can turn out the base, particularly in Republican primaries, by pandering to narrow mined, bigoted, or simply scared individuals. But at what cost? Few progressives, liberals or independents--and increasingly fewer conservatives--want to think of themselves as advocating or voting for discrimination against other human beings. And the politicians leading the charge of bigotry against lgbt people smack of the same backwards, narrow-minded, and hateful attitudes that opposed the civil rights movement. Few politicians want to be remembered by history as opponents to progress. Yet, conservative politicians now face that dilemma-be remembered by history as outspoken opponents to fairness, equality, families, and love, or be remembered as champions of those timeless values. Or, perhaps worst of all for a politician, not be remembered at all.

Yes, we won, yesterday. But, more importantly, we're going to win tomorrow.

We Didn't Win Everything. Still, We Won.

DyspepTex — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:30:23 GMT

This is a repost from the Equality Texas blog at EqualityTexas.org. But don't worry, I'll hang around.

It's not as hard as you think.

We won.

No, we didn't win everything. The big prize of marriage in Maine got away. Still, we won. Let's take stock.

Yes, we won, yesterday. But, more importantly, we're going to win tomorrow.

The Federal Hate Crimes Act and Texas

DyspepTex — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:08:38 GMT

This is a repost from our blog at Equalitytexas.org. I'll hang around to answer questions and comments. But, check out our website, and help us out.

Federal Hate Crimes Legislation - A Grim Victory

Today, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It is an important, yet grim, victory for the LGBT and other targeted communities. Among other important steps, the Act marks the first time federal law has referred to "gender identity" in a positive manner and offered transgender persons some form of protection.

It has taken 13 years, untold victims, multiple deaths, and the efforts of survivors, loved ones and activists to get the Hate Crimes Act passed. No one, of course, expects the Act to actually end hate crimes. However, the hope is that by granting the federal government the jurisdiction and resources to prosecute hate crimes people will become more aware, and educated, about hate crimes--eventually leading to an overall reduction in this, one of the most hideous forms of violence.

More below the fold..
Hate crimes are never pretty, and it is tough to talk about them. But it is important to remember them so that we have the motivation, and courage, to move forward. For those of you too young to remember it serves to recount the barest details about the men, and the crimes, for which the Act was named. In 1998, Mr. Shepard, only 21 years old at the time, was tortured, beaten, crucified and left to die on a barbed wire fence in Wyoming. He died in a hospital five days later from head injuries. Mr. Shepard was targeted because he was gay. In 1999, Mr. Byrd, a 47 year old father, accepted a ride home from three men (one of whom he knew), but instead of being driven home was beaten and dragged to death behind a pickup truck. His body was found spread over three miles of road in East Texas. Part of the perpetrators' defense relied upon claims they had slashed his throat before they dragged Mr. Byrd (so he suffered less), but these claims were countered by the forensic evidence. Mr. Byrd was targeted because he was a African-American.

Mr. Byrd's death led directly to the passage, in Texas, of the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act in 2001. Thanks to the steadfast support of African-American and Hispanic state legislators, the Texas version of the Hate Crimes Act included the first-ever statewide protection for gays and lesbians. Undoubtedly, the Texas act would have passed years earlier if it had not included this protection, and it was only through the united support of all communities over several years that the Texas act was as inclusive as it was. Without this support it is likely that there would still be no Texas protection at all for gays and lesbians.

The Texas act, however, did not include protection based upon gender identity. This is a failure that some Texas legislators, notably Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) have been trying to correct ever since.

Given that Texas already has a hate crimes act, will the federal act have any effect upon Texans? There are, in fact, several benefits of a federal act, some of these are obvious, some not. Some are legal, some political.

Most significantly, of course, the federal act includes protection for people based upon gender identity. Transgender people are some of the most disempowered, vulnerable, and misunderstood people in our country. Consequently, they suffer disproportionately from hate crimes and those hate crimes are disproportionately violent and ultimately fatal. It is estimated that one person in this country is murdered every month because of their gender identity--which is extraordinarily high given the small demographic population. (For those who have participated in the Transgender Day of Remembrance this is probably not news). So, gender identity protection is a significant hallmark of today's federal act.

The lasting legacy of the federal Hate Crimes Act, however, is likely to be the political line that has been crossed. For the first time ever at the federal level, sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the "laundry list" enumeration of protected classes. This marks a graduation, of sorts, for the LGBT community marking our passage from the "minority among minorities" status that treated LGBT people as unworthy of protection to "accepted minority community" status.

To mix metaphors, the LGBT community has taken its first step toward full minority community status, against which (like the other established minority communities) discrimination is legally, socially, and morally unacceptable. And, much like the passage of the Texas Hate Crimes Act, the willingness of all minority and targeted communities to hang together and insist upon inclusion, and this time full LGBT inclusion, in the federal Hate Crimes Act means that we can work with anyone, and they with us, to pass legislation and advance the cause of equality.

The raw fact of a victory for the LGBT community is, in itself, politically important. No longer can a federal politician say "I support equality, but a bill with full LGBT inclusion will not pass." Wrong. It just did. No longer will LGBT inclusion be the dreaded death knell for a good human rights bill--the unchallengeable, yet unsupported, assumption behind a politician's sympathetic "I'd like to help you, but....." LGBT protection can pass. It has passed! Henceforth, it will be difficult to create any list of enumerated classes or human rights legislation that does not fully include the LGBT community.

Beyond the federal political implications, the (now, as of today) existence of the federal Hate Crimes Act will also directly affect the prosecution of hate crimes in Texas. The federal act gives the United States Attorney general the power to prosecute violent hate crimes in instances when there is no state hate crime law, a state is not enforcing its own hate crime law, or when a state asks for help. In other words, the federal law says "Do it, or we'll do it for you!" As much as Texas politicians love to bemoan federal interference, the threat of that interference is likely to spur Texas prosecutors to act.

Because Texas has no hate crimes protection based on gender identity, any hate crime in Texas against a transgender person now automatically qualifies for federal prosecution. This is infinitely more protection against hate crimes than transgender people had before. It also makes it more likely that the Texas legislature will pass a bill to include gender identity protection in our own Texas Hate Crimes Act, if for no other reason than to keep federal prosecutors out of the hate crimes business in Texas.

Under the new law, the federal government can also get involved in hate crimes prosecutions if a state is not enforcing its own laws. This federal authority could motivate Texas politicians and prosecutors, as well. Texas police officers have investigated over 1,800 potential hate crimes since the Texas James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act was passed in 2001. But, Texas prosecutors have only tried fewer than a dozen cases in which they sought a conviction as a hate crime. Fear of federal interference may lead more Texas prosecutors to seek hate crimes convictions. That same reluctance to see federal interference might lead Texas politicians to ask "why aren't more hate crimes being prosecuted as such?" This motivation could lend more political support to the proposal to conduct a Hate Crimes Study, carried by Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth) for the last two sessions. Such a study is intended to identify ways to make the Texas hate crimes act better, and more enforceable. At the same time, the findings of such a study might convince the feds that Texas prosecutors were, or were not, really trying to enforce their own laws.

Today, then, is a good day to take a few minutes to think about where we are, as an LGBT movement. We've come a long way, frequently because of the violence that has been inflicted upon our community-either as a group (ala Stonewall or Rainbow Lounge) or individually (ala Matthew Shepard, Harvey Milk, et al. ad infinitum). Today's signing marks just such progress. It's nice that someone will get punished for beating the hell out of you, just because you might be LGBT.

At the same time, it reminds us we have a long way to go toward full equality. You can still be fired in Texas just because you're gay. You can be denied the opportunity to adopt because you're a lesbian. You cannot have both your adoptive parents on your birth certificate if they're the same sex. If your partner is in the hospital, you can be denied the right to sit at their bedside. If you're a Texas kid, you still face challenges in school and you are far, far, more likely than straight kids to drop out of school, attempt suicide, be beaten or kicked out of the house and wind up on the streets. Just because of your sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

Yet, there is hope. Today's victory is strong proof of that. And we have the momentum. But we have a long, long way to go. Join us in the journey. You make equality happen.

Posted by Randall Terrell, Political Director

Public Memorial Service on Sunday in Austin for Jennifer Gale

Karl-Thomas Musselman — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:13:56 GMT

Please spread this widely to those who wish to come together to honor her memory. It will be this Sunday at 11 AM down by the river at the intersection of Riverside and South 1st. Here is a picture of the actual Tree and location to orient yourself.

WHAT: Mobile Loaves & Fishes and House the Homeless are holding a memorial service for Jennifer Gale with remembrances and music of the homeless woman who died on the streets this week
WHEN: 11 a.m. Sunday, Dec. 21
WHERE: The Homeless Memorial and Tree of Remembrance on Auditorium Shores at South 1st and Riverside
MORE INFO: Alan Graham, alan@mlfnow.org or 422-1849

Donations will be accepted for both organizations or you can give online in advance.

P.S. You can also confirm for the event on Facebook or support her there.

Update: Yesterday we posted some commentary from a staffer at City Hall which may have been a bit premature in its analysis of Jennifer Gale's challenges with Austin homeless services as a Transgender woman. While the issue certainly is a real issue for many trans folks who are homeless, I wanted to post an update from the same individual to shed new light and information on local services and what might be able to be done to make sure we are most accommodating in Austin.

So what I wrote the other day about trans-services may not have been entirely accurate. I have since spoken with people at both the ARCH and the Salvation Army here in town to learn what they do for homeless transfolks. It turns out the ARCH, while a men's only shelter, is actually pretty educated on the issues and accepts people as they present themselves. While this wouldn't have helped Jennifer Gale except for day-sleeping, it is certainly respectable. They will also provide for privacy in the restrooms/showers for transfolks. The Salvation Army on the other hand...they do apparently have a policy of non-discrimination and they do not turn trans people away, but I'm not fully sold on their ability to actually understand the issue. If they are not full they will give trans people privacy (maybe they have private quarters of some sort), but if full and they are in an overflow shelter situation, as they were Tuesday night, I am under the impression that they will assign people according to their anatomy.
To be honest, I'm not sure the right answer. I know that putting a transwoman in a men's dormitory is not the right answer. If she happens to have male anatomy still, having her shower with women doesn't seem like the right answer either. I appreciate the private quarters/private showering situation, but I don't know how sustainable that is or how much agencies can do that in dire circumstances when there just isn't room to provide privacy.
It also seems like the City of Austin may have policies in place already to provide for trans protection in employment, public accomodation and housing. I'm not sure yet what the definition of "public accomodation" is, but I'm starting to wonder if there actually is something we can do policy-wise. If not, maybe this is more of an enforcement...and therefore, education issue for our community, and those service providers. Now, how do we do that?