By Donna Rose

Donna has been a long-time friend of mine since the early days of our transition in Arizona. We may not always see eye-to-eye, but we have remained friends through some tough times.

It seems that every year or two there is an article somewhere that some scientist or doctor has identified a biological “cause” for being gay or transgender. These kinds of things seem to get a significant amount of attention and then fade into obscurity until the next bombshell discovery is made. In 1993 there was much fanfare over an article published in Science magazine about the discovery of a “gay gene.” Did that settle the question of whether or not sexuality is biological or learned? Of course not. That investigation continues today.

The most recent revelation in this regard is a report out of Australia that scientists there have found a genetic link for transsexualism. This kind of research is looking to provide conclusive proof about something that many of us already know – that there is a biological connection to development of gender identity. Although many of us get excited and get our hopes up when we see this kind of news, I doubt any of us are naive enough to believe that this will be the be-all, end-all of research in that regard.

(Break)

Specifically, this report says that their research showed a group of transsexual volunteers were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene. This genetic difference may cause weaker testosterone signals and therefore have other implications regarding the development of gender identity.

It should come as no surprise that, like many other topics dealing with transgender issues, this discussion often inflames passions. I’ll admit that I gave up looking for the causes of my own dissonance several years ago recognizing that the causes were less important than the actions to address it. However, there is a large segment of the community for whom finding causes is very important. There are any number of legal, medical, insurance implications that may be justified if and when a biological “cause” is found.

One article reporting this research is titled “Transgender People Validated By Aussie Research.”

Hopefully these findings will not only help better educate society, but also those in the medical profession who treat those born with gender dysphoria.

Many transgender people have believed for the longest time that biology had been the cause. I myself believe this as my earliest memories were that of wanting to be a girl even before I learnt to spell. Hopefully further studies like this will prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the phenomenon is a natural occurrence, leading to social acceptance of transgender people.

Although I applaud this research and hope the it leads to the kind of broader acceptance that the article describes, I can’t help but chafe at the notion that any of us need to be validated by medical research. Our validation comes in many ways, and certainly identifying some sort of concrete biological link would help in that regard, but that’s not our only hope. In this day and age of 21st century marvels, simple concepts like “I think, therefore I am” still apply.

The title of this article is an example of the dangerous notion that somehow science or medicine needs to be involved in order to make something “real.” Whether we find definitive proof or not doesn’t negate, lessen, or invalidate things that we know to be true about ourselves. There’s no test for “Love,” yet nobody questions as to whether it’s real or not. And to question the existence of God because there is arguably no scientific proof of some supreme being is to invite attack from all directions. The point is that, although there may well be some biological connection for many of us, that’s not all there is.

One of the challenges is that there is no one “cause” for being transgender. Although it’s a self-diagnosed condition it’s far more complicated than having a single universal cause. In fact, if they somehow developed some kind of a litmus test where you could pee in a cup and determine whether or not you had this transgender “gene” I’d urge that people be very wary of taking it. What would you do if you knew yourself to be transgender but the test indicated otherwise?

The underlying concept here is one of validation. Many of us want to be validated in a way that provides physical proof for our situation. Without it we find ourselves constantly on the defensive about whether or not this is a “choice,” or a “lifestyle,” or some sort of mental illness. Without hard undeniable evidence many feel unable to effectively blunt attacks that continue to stigmatize and undermine efforts to integrate into broader society. However, none of us can be so naive as to believe that acceptance is going to magically happen once definitive proof is found. Proof is in the eye of the beholder, and there will always be those who choose to doubt.

Still, this kind of thing is another step in the movement towards broader acceptance. One thing I do find interesting, however, is that all of the internet news reporting on this is out of India, Australia and the UK so far. There has been very sparse US-based reporting of it yet. Coincidence? I think not.

(Originally posted on Trans Political, July 23, 2008)

Vanessa Edwards Foster is the former President & Co-Founder, National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) President, Texas Gender Advocacy & Information Network (TGAIN) Former President & Screening Committee Chair, Harris County Women’s Political Caucus National level Alt. Delegate 2004, National level Delegate 2008 to Dem. Convention Election Judge 1999-2005 Former President, Texas Assn. for Transsexual Support (TATS) Former President, Gulf Coast Transgender Community Former Treasurer & Screening Committee Co-Chair, Houston Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus Former Secretary, Montrose Counseling Center. Volunteer Coord, City Councilmember Annise Parker (1st Lesbian elected to Houston political office)

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” — Chinese Proverb

The rumors have been flying for some time, and even recently Donna Rose noted on her blog about meeting with Joe Solmonese with HRC. One might think she’s going there to give them a piece of her mind (or another piece as she’s already made public her opinions post-ENDA).

As it turns out, that’s not the case. A friend of mine there locally reported of the upcoming San Francisco HRC Banquet and its accompanying protest from the bay area’s GLBT community in a show of strength. Of course, we recently received a press release of HRC holding up their current Business Council trans person, Diego Sanchez as speaker (fresh from testimony on Capitol Hill.) It wasn’t the press blurb over Diego that really got my attention, but the report that another trans person was working hard to be the trans keynote there: Donna Rose. Per the note, she was trying to be “the bridge between the two parties” by addressing the banquet.

(Break)

Needless to say, this is not what I expected from Donna after her departure last fall.

Noting the recent comments on her own blog about speaking with HRC’s JoeSo, I began wondering what this was about. Ethan St. Pierre apparently had similar concerns and asked her outright: to which she confirmed she was to meet with him. It doesn’t make sense to travel to DC to give JoeSo another piece of her mind in these days of high-dollar travel, so something else is afoot. Didn’t sound good.

So the news I received today, coupled with the blog where Donna indeed noted being in DC, and even attending an HRC hosted event, piqued the curiosity. According to my well-placed source (I can’t divulge, unfortunately), Donna is intending to meet with JoeSo to try to seek forging a new working relationship with them (what that is wasn’t elaborated). This development is troubling.

First off, it’s inconsistent. After all of the high profile quotes from Ms. Rose after her and James Green’s co-departures from HRC, and then rhetoric level, I’m at a loss on what she hopes to gain. Just recently Donna even published a blog post on July 20, 2008 quoting James Green’s own sentiments on HRC:

“As for HRC and Diego [Sanchez], I’m afraid that inside the Westin St. Francis Hotel it’s going to be a lot of everyone patting themselves on the back for all the fabulous things HRC has done to move forward in the “Race for Equality” – and they have done some good things, as well as bad. In the long run, it’s just a fundraiser, it’s all about money. I was appalled at their recent press release claiming that ENDA was introduced 13 years ago to achieve LGBT equality in the workplace. 13 years ago, ENDA was not any more trans-inclusive than it is today. They’re trying to reposition themselves as champions for us when they can’t even look us in the eye. I wish Diego luck, and I woudn’t want to be in his shoes. They’ll probably give him lots of love and support and hold him up as the model of a well-behaved transguy (not like those ingrates and rabblerousers outside who don’t have $300 and a tuxedo to attend the dinner and who obviously don’t understand politics!! – that was meant to be sarcastic, by the way.) I think HRC is also a tool, not the goal, not the saviour, not the answer. We don’t have a grip on this tool, so we can’t rely on it. I still believe HRC needs to own its mistake on ENDA and apologize publicly to the entire community, not just to a few of us behind closed doors. But I also think that we must not let HRC consume our energy or resources as we move forward to address our issues. They don’t own the world, not even the LGBT world; and we must play in a bigger arena than just the LGBT world.”

Strong sentiments from James, and (at least to me) pretty unequivocal – though maybe I’m not spotting any nuanced politic-speak. Since Green and Rose departed, the two began a well-publicized venture between them to do workplace education as a business (instead of non-profit) to help subsidize their income a bit. So if they’re in business, actually even competing against HRC’s business council (which they used to sit on) for some of the educational needs in the workplace, what would they want to be visiting with JoeSo for?

Secondly, there’s nothing to be gained from HRC. One thing I’ve noted with particular consistency over the years is that HRC is – in a word – vindictive. Once slighted, they will grind that axe down to the axhandle, and then some. It was something I thought Donna and James would’ve known. If not, I’m surprised. At best, HRC may allow them in under the guise of “letting bygones be bygones” and all that. But make no mistake, there will be no quarter given on their side after this – most especially if Donna is going to them! They will be getting all of the benefits they once got out of them and then some – meanwhile they will do so at a bargain rate. If she’s actually intending to beseech JoeSo for favor of some type, she’s about to get schooled by very seasoned and cunning pros – whether sublimely or whether in open bitch-slap fashion.

Lastly, this whole display just adds to the already existent image of the trans community: we are completely irresolute. If the going gets tough for us, HRC is fully aware we won’t all hang together. Someone will collapse like a cheap tent (always under the guise that they individually are the chosen trans-ones, and the only ones who can “reach” HRC and convince them to accept transgenders as equal.) To be sure, HRC will smile and give them the impression they truly buy that crap, bedazzling them afterwards with their newfound press visibility talking up their “heroic” work. Then once the signal is given, HRC will pull the rug out, declare that they don’t give a crap about any “bridges” to the trans community, can’t risk inclusive legislation, and will leave these latest “heroes” on the ground broken, betrayed and blue. It’s business, baby.

Most of us learn these things the first time. What gets me is how some actually go back for a second round to see it happens again. Why? Maybe they miss the old spotlight, have attention withdrawals, or feel if they had just “one more chance,” they could set the history they knew in their minds were destined just for them. Unfortunately HRC has other plans, and paramount is achieving their bottom line (and keeping us around for some indefinite future time is what they believe will help keep them in fundraising in keeping their jobs in the decades to come as they then need to work on trans rights for we hapless ones — or so they believe).

So Donna will go to DC to visit with JoeSo in his home stadium in hopes of a win. Instead, JoeSo is going to summarily hand her back her ass and figuratively ride her out of town. Maybe this lesson will stick.

What bothers me most is how naïve and ineffectual that paints the rest of us as in the Trans community. We really need to know better.

“You, you really should have known
Oh you, I think you really should’ve known ….” — Just Because, Jane’s Addiction