Monica Helms: A few months back, the Transgender American Veterans Association’s Organizational Liaison, Paula Dee Wright, received a communication from Dr. Judy Rosenstein, civilian instructor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Dr. Rosenstein teaches Social Inequality, a sociology elective, and she asked to have a transgender veteran come and speak to her class.

You can imagine how we felt being presented with the opportunity to speak at the oldest military academy in the United States. Some of our most famous military figures in this country’s history have walked its halls. Never in its 206-year history has an openly transgender person been invited to speak to the cadets, so the invitation to TAVA was a first.

The discussion between board members on how we should proceed focused primarily on finding the perfect person to take on this historical task. We had many in our community who have also spent time in the halls of West Point, but only a few would be able to represent our part of the community in the way that would not only respect West Point and their long traditions, but respect the transgender community. Angela Brightfeather, TAVA’s VP, had the right person in mind.

We asked Allyson Robinson, who graduated from West Point in 1994, to take on this “mission,” and she proudly accepted. However, we made one big request of her. Allyson currently works for HRC as the Associate Director of Diversity and we asked that in this situation, she represent TAVA when she arrived at West Point, even though she was not part of our board. We made the request only because Dr. Rosenstein made the initial contact to us. Because of how important this visit would be, Allyson and HRC had no problem with that.

(Break)

Angela Brightfeather: I make no bones about my dislike of the way HRC has acted towards the transgender community over the last 18 months. While I feel that we do not need them as a part of the Transgender Movement and that we are far better of either ignoring them or just telling them not to do us any favors, that would probably contribute to the schism that has already occurred. I cannot find it in my heart to simply dismiss those transgender people who are associated with them and their commitment to change HRC and the way it does business with our community.

As misguided as some people may seem, there is merit in working for change inside of HRC if at all possible.

The purpose of Allyson Robinson representing TAVA during her visit back to her Alma Mater at West Point, clearly as an example that, as a community, being transgender is much more important than our affiliations with organizations. There is a point where we have to admit that we are involved and activists because we feel we must be part of something larger than ourselves or any one organization. Allyson’s visit proves exactly that point. TAVA and Allyson Robinson allied together, one for the purpose of knowingly and purposefully creating history, and the other, to have a transgender person ready as the best individual to be a part of that history.

In today’s new age of creating unity, new beginnings, changes and reaching across the aisle, TAVA and Allyson decided that West Point needed to learn about our community, which was far more important and painted a far larger picture. This need overshadowed any obstacles regarding group affiliations or things that might have happened in the past, most gratefully sacrificed for new and loftier beginnings.

While some of us can never agree with who Allyson Robinson works for, we all have to admit that she is a transgender person first and foremost, who understands the big picture of our community and will reach across the aisle to help. To us on the outside and who take exception to HRC and the way they treat us, at least we know that transgender people on the outside and on the inside can still respect and work with each other, one, committing to change, and the other communicating what those changes need to be. That is a hopeful situation for all of us that gives little credit for political causes, but gives great credit to being transgender and creating community.

Allyson Robinson:

A native of Scranton, Pa., Allyson Robinson is a 1994 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, where she majored in engineering physics. After an internship at Los Alamos National Laboratory, she was commissioned as an officer in the Army and served with PATRIOT missile units in the United States, Germany and Saudi Arabia. She also worked for NATO as an air defense evaluator and advised the Royal Saudi Air Force on missile defense tactics, techniques and procedures.

Robinson resigned her commission in 1999 to pursue a calling to Christian ministry. After her ordination, she served as pastor-teacher to churches in the Portuguese Azores and in central Texas. Her ministry work focused on raising awareness of systemic poverty and the intersecting systems of oppression that create and sustain it, while working to organize responses to poverty at the local, regional, national and international levels. She earned a master of divinity degree in theology, with a capstone emphasis in social justice, from Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary in 2007.

The following is Allyson Robinson’s report to TAVA on her historical return to West Point:

I arrived at West Point on the evening of November 4, just as election returns were beginning to come in from the states on the eastern seaboard. The timing seemed portentous to me; I felt a bit as though I was riding the leading edge of the wave of change sweeping our nation. But paradoxically, I also felt like I was coming home. I had been back to West Point many times since I graduated in 1994, but not since my transition. To return not as a prodigal, but rather as an honored guest, was meaningful to me in ways that are difficult to put into words. So many transgender people are (formally or informally) disavowed by organizations and institutions that had once embraced them. To know that my alma mater, my “Rockbound Highland Home,” was calling me back with honor was profoundly moving for me.

I arrived on post on the morning of November 5 and presented my identification to the guard at the gate. He asked me what my business was and I replied that I would be guest lecturing in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership. “Do you know your way to Thayer Hall,” he asked as he returned my license to me. “I’m a grad,” I said, “so I know my way around.” He smiled. “Well then, welcome home, Ms. Robinson,” he said, waving me through the gate. I fought back tears as I drove toward the Cadet Area.

It was a beautiful fall morning–sunny, cool, and crisp, with the autumn leaves just past their prime–and so I parked about a mile from Thayer Hall and walked. On my way, I stopped by the post cemetery, as has been my custom for almost 15 years. I couldn’t help but notice how much fuller it has become in just the last few years, with graves of young men and women killed in battle far outnumbering those of older veterans in the newer areas of the cemetery.

I also stopped for a moment at the grave of my West Point roommate, my best friend, who was killed in an accident less than a year after we graduated. After having come out to so many old friends over the last few years, I was so glad that time and fate had conspired to give me the opportunity finally to tell Mark the truth. I know he would have been one of the first to offer me his love and support had he lived–as it was, I felt his love and support as I continued on to the academic area.

I met Dr. Judy Rosenstein in her office about fifteen minutes before my first class was to begin. One of the cadre of civilian instructors in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, Judy is a great friend to our community and a bold advocate. We had spent a couple of hours on the phone the night before, discussing the ways her cadets had responded to the news I would be coming and brainstorming about what we might expect from them, and so I felt very well prepared as we made our way to the room where the lecture was to be held. When we arrived, much of the class was waiting for us, along with several other faculty who had asked to participate. The chairs were set up in a wide circle, and so I found a seat and waited for the Cadet Section Leader to bring the class to order.

This first section I was teaching was Social Inequality, a sociology elective, and most of the class were Firsties (seniors). One thing that stood out to me immediately as I looked around the room was the ethnic diversity of the cadets, which seemed to be much greater than during my time. The percentage of women also seemed to be a little higher. (Later discussions with faculty confirmed these perceptions as accurate.) After a brief introduction by Judy, I began my lecture.

The cadets were very respectful and engaged, as I expected them to be. There were some who were clearly uncomfortable with the topic, but my teaching style is very conversational and by the time I worked my way through my notes and opened it up for questions, nearly everyone in the room seemed to have gotten over their discomfort.

Their questions ran the gamut of the transgender experience and were very well thought out. That said, they seemed particularly interested in two topics: how my wife and I had preserved our marriage through transition, and how I had been able to justify my transition in light of my faith. (This interest carried over into the second group I taught as well.)

The first focus, on my marriage, seemed natural enough coming from this particular audience; the second, however, seemed out of place. While many cadets in my day were people of faith, far fewer practiced their faith regularly, and I can’t recall a single time that an issue of faith was raised in the classroom.

When I mentioned later this to Colonel Tom Kolditz, the department chair, he shared with me how the spiritual face of the Corps had changed in the fifteen years since I graduated. As our culture has shifted toward tolerance and celebration of diversity, many prospective cadets and their parents have come to see West Point as a bastion of conservative social values–a place where they can be assured of experiencing the kind of social-moral environment they desire.

In Colonel Kolditz’s words, “In previous years, when you’d ask cadets what other schools they had to choose from, you’d hear, ‘Yale, Harvard, and West Point,’ or ‘MIT, CalTech, and West Point.’ Today, you’re just as likely to hear, ‘Liberty University, Wheaton College, and West Point.’” This represents a change that is worrisome to me, but I’m comforted to know that Colonel Kolditz’s department is dedicating itself to exposing cadets to the diverse face of America as it is, rather than allowing them to exist in a cocoon of America as they wish it was.

About half a dozen cadets lingered after our class to ask questions, and after speaking with them, Judy and I made our way to Colonel Kolditz’s office for the meeting I just alluded to. When I entered his office, he got up to greet me, extended his hand, and said, “Welcome home,” the second time I’d heard those words that day.

Our meeting, originally scheduled for 15 minutes, lasted an hour. He was interested in my impression of the cadets and I wanted to hear from his perspective why I was there and what he hoped his students would gain from having met me. I was incredibly impressed with the colonel. He struck me as a leader with his finger on the Army’s pulse and his eyes on the national horizon. He expressed interest in having me return to speak to future classes, thanked me profusely, and as our time was drawing to a close, asked me a question that surprised me. “What can we do for you?” I had prepared to make an ask of Colonel Kolditz, but didn’t expect to be offered such a clear opening.

I asked him to begin considering how the Army should treat transgender soldiers and dependents in light of the imminent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” With the story a dear friend, currently serving in the cabinet of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as my launch pad, I suggested that this issue would soon present itself to the Army and that the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership was naturally positioned to lead the way in making the Army fully inclusive of transgender service members. He committed to considering the issue, and I urged him to seek the advice and counsel of TAVA at the earliest opportunity. As I left, he gave me a Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership coin–a special honor for me as my wife majored in that department and doesn’t have a coin!–and asked me to stay in touch.

I’m sure by this point that my fond remembrances and nostalgia are beginning to bore you, so I’ll only note here that I was able to visit a cadet barracks with the Firstie who served as my escort and then had lunch with the Corps in the Cadet Mess–the first time I had been in those areas since my graduation fifteen years ago.

After lunch I lectured to a second group of cadets, this time in an Introduction to Sociology class for junior sociology, psychology, and leadership majors. While they were less engaged than my first class–which I chalked up to the greater diversity of academic backgrounds in the room, as well as the fact that it was the hour immediately following lunch–they were still very respectful of me and of our community, and seemed eager to learn more.

There were many faculty members in attendance as well, and I spent an hour after the lecture speaking with them and getting their perspective on the issues. They echoed Colonel Kolditz’s assessment of the Corps’ conservative shift and expressed concern that it seemed to be a tremendous challenge for them to discuss an issue like the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” objectively and dispassionately. I share their concern.

I dined that evening with Judy and two other faculty members, Major Darcy Schnack (professor of one of the sections of Introduction to Sociology I had taught) and her husband, Major Troy Schnack of the Department of History. We had a wonderful discussion of our shared experience with my lectures and of future opportunities.

I’d like to close by thanking you, and every member of TAVA, for allowing me the opportunity to represent us at West Point. Words fail me as I seek to express my gratitude, so I will say simply that I count it as one of the very highest honors I have ever received, or ever could. I am deeply, deeply grateful.

Please let me know if my report raises any questions for you or if you’d like more details on any part of my visit. Of course, if I can serve TAVA in any capacity in the future, I hope you won’t hesitate to call on me.

Duty, Honor, Country,
Allyson Robinson

As the President of TAVA, I cannot express how proud I am of Allyson and her commitment to our community. She won’t be at HRC for many years, and when she does decide to move on, I see her as one of our future leaders. She is another example of how the military veterans in our community can step up when the need arises. She made history, but there are more moments like these waiting for us in the future. After all, there is the Naval Academy in Annapolis and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Is someone out there able to open these doors for us?

I received a phone call from a good friend, Zan Thorton, telling me that Congressman Barney Frank had fifteen disabled people arrested in his office, Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at around 3 PM.  Zan informed me that around fifty LGBT and straight disabled people entered the Congressman’s office around 1:30 PM and asked to speak to him about the housing crisis for disabled people.  They were there representing the Center for Disability Rights.

According to the Congressman’s Chief of Staff, Peter Kovar, the group, several in wheelchairs, came into the office, went right into Congressman Frank’s office and “moved things around” to have a place to sit.  He informed them that they couldn’t be in there and that Frank was about to go to the House floor for a vote.

(Break)

Kovar stated they needed an appointment to speak with the Congressman.  The Spokesperson for the group, Bruce Darling, Executive Director of the Center For Disability Rights, stated they have tried and tried to get an appointment but had been turned down each time.  Kovar asked them to leave their literature and come back later, and asked them to leave “five times.”  Congressman Frank even asked them to leave three times.

The group started chanting, disrupting the office activities, so someone called the police.  Out of the fifty, fifteen people, all of them disabled, refused to leave and were arrested.  In that fifteen, one was trans, three were lesbians and three were gay men, including Bruce Darling, and all were in wheelchairs.  According to Zan, the other eight were either straight or she didn’t know.  Zan called me while the Metro Police Department processed her in.

I got a chance to speak with Peter Kovar and he was “mystified” why the group took a belligerent stance when this was an issue that Frank highly supported.  The group actually has a legislative aid in the Congressman’s office who had been working with them on this legislation.  One of the things Zan told me was that they also wanted to talk with the Congressman about transgender rights.  Seems to me that they may have ruined their good relationship with Frank’s office.

This is just another incident in the increasing evidence that some LGBT people are willing to ratchet up the level of confrontation with other LGBT people, causing more to be harassed, injured and arrested by the very LGBT people they protest.  We have seen a person physically ejected from an HRC dinner, mounted police at the Houston HRC dinner and I was almost arrested handing out flyers at an HRC sponsored event.  HRC has hired a goon squad to protect their people and now Barney Frank is willing to have disabled LGBT people arrested.

I am not defending the actions of the protestors any more then I am defending the actions of HRC and Barney Frank’s people.  There is a fine line between protesting to get your point across to the largest audience and crossing the line, making yourself look foolish.  Even though some of our LGBT people grew up in the 60s and participated in the Civil Rights and war protests, the technology of the 21^st Century has created a whole new set of “Rules of Engagement.”

The biggest change in the 21^st Century is the advent of the digital recording media.  Practically every cell phone can take photos and many can do video as well, after which they can be sent to other phones and E-mail addresses.  Instead of relying on a lone news camera person with a black and white 16mm camera to cover the events that get viewed days later, we can send out video from over a hundred different angles, and from both sides of the conflict, instantaneously.

Digital still cameras can capture hundreds of photos in a matter of minutes, then downloaded on a laptop and sent to thousands of people instantly through a Wi-Fi connection.  Text messages and phone calls are also instant, so many people are aware of the event as it happens.  As evident of this, my friend Zan called me from the DC MPD as she was being processed in.  That wouldn’t have been possible in the 60s.

So, how does this world of instant everything changed the face of protesting?  It can lay bare the atrocities of some people and governments, breaking the barriers of silence and repression.  We saw Buddhist monks protesting in Tibet, yet the Chinese government tried to suppress the information and pictures.  We could see protesters in China during the Olympics, getting past the strongest surveillance China has ever initiated.  Children misbehaving on a bus, train wrecks and natural disasters are recorded and sent out for all to see.  Not only is Big Brother watching us, but so is all of his next of kin.

But, there is another side to this age of instant recordings.  We, the protesters, are also scrutinized in great detail by those whom we protest.  Make one mistake, say one wrong thing, act just a little stupid and our actions will also find their way on YouTube.  A picture is worth a 1000 words and moving pictures can invalidate a 1000 words we may try to use to defend our actions.  How many elections have been derailed because of a stupid comment splashed on YouTube?  Movements can experience setbacks because of the actions of just a few.  Just ask yourself this, “Do I want to be the person who makes my organization look foolish?”  It’s a question Joe Solmonese should have asked before taking the podium at Southern Comfort last year.

I have heard many activists who say we should take to the streets and cause civil disobedience to make our issues more visible.  I don’t see this as a viable way to approach things in the 21^st Century.  Digital technology makes our issue visible in ways we could have never dreamt of, or hoped for in the past.  We can use that instead.

Also, we should take a queue from what happened to protesters at this year’s Republican Convention.  The police no longer care if you are just passing through or not.  If you are in the area, you’re a target.  Due process isn’t due anyone any longer.  There’s also no gray area and the police don’t care about harming people.  This hasn’t changed much since the 1960s, but they have more weapons to use.  I hope the people who protested Frank’s office don’t come away with too big of a fine to pay.  We will chalk this up as another learning experience.

Recently, there has been a heated discussion on The Bilerico Project about the emotion of Anger.  I have written articles on love and being in love and finding love, but I have never tackled the very misunderstood emotion of anger.  I felt that this could be a challenge to spark my meager writing talents.  Here goes.

I will be the first to admit I can get angry at times.  (I can hear the audience now, “F-in’-A, Monica!”)  I have no delusion about this one bit.  I don’t deny it like others try to do.  It has been made apparent several times that I am one of the biggest mixer of feces on blogs, in articles and on Yahoo lists.  Yep, I even bought a huge wooden spoon at Target to make the mixing easier.  Sometime, it’s real anger, while others is more like faux anger, or even “anger lite.”  Less filling.

(Break)

I decided that I would approach the idea of discussing anger in the transgender community by looking at the causes.  Regardless of how I approached this subject, I could end up angering some people with this article.  Open discourse is highly welcomed.  I will also not ignore the comments after this article, because I hope to provide more input as questions and comments come up.

Let’s start with the Dictionary.com definition of “anger:”

Noun – a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire.

Synonyms – Resentment, exasperation; choler, bile, spleen. Anger, fury, indignation, rage imply deep and strong feelings aroused by injury, injustice, wrong, etc. Anger is the general term for a sudden violent displeasure: a burst of anger. Indignation implies deep and justified anger: indignation at cruelty or against corruption. Rage is vehement anger: rage at being frustrated. Fury is rage so great that it resembles insanity: the fury of an outraged lover.  Displease, vex, irritate, exasperate, infuriate, enrage, incense, madden.

How much of that describes the experiences and feelings of the majority of the transgender community?  Quite a bit, if you ask me.  Noticed the words, “Strong feelings aroused by injury, injustice, wrong, etc.”  Have transgender people ever been “injured?”  Have they faced “injustice?”  Have they been “wronged?”  And people wonder why we’re angry.  Some transgender people of wealth and privilege also seem to wonder why the rest of us become angry so easily, because they have rarely ever faced any of the above mentioned experiences.

Now that we have shown the definition of the word “anger,” let’s explore how it specifically relates to the transgender community.  “Why would any transgender person become angry?”  Most of us are painfully aware that once we start our transition, we could lose everything.  I lost my parents, my family, my children and all of my friends.  However, I am one of the lucky ones because I didn’t lose my job.  I have been working for the same company for 18.5 years, spending 11 of those years as Monica.

Over the years, I gained back my children and the rest of the family.  I had to lose my father before I my mother accepted me back.  I still don’t have any contact with my pre-Monica friends, but I have made more friends in the past eleven years then I ever made in the previous 46.

As I said, I am one of the lucky ones.  Others are not so lucky.  Job discrimination has spiraled out of control in this community.  Being fired for being trans, then not getting hired after applying for hundreds of jobs can make a person angry.  No wonder people become upset with a non-inclusive ENDA and the people who created it and supported it.  For all practical purposes the supporters of that bill are saying to the unemployed trans person that their situation doesn’t matter.  Trans people are getting the message that only the gender-conforming, queer people deserve their rights first, so they become angry because of that perception.  This makes the unemployed transgender person feel even more isolated.  Some LGB people who have the money and the time to fight for equal rights seem not want to help the transgender community.  Their message is that those who cannot spend time or money to speak up for themselves don’t deserve their attention.  It does nothing but increase the anger.

What about “injustice?”  The courts appeared to have been stacked against us for a very long time.  Just a simple divorce proceeding can turn into the Spanish Inquisition, complete with rack.  Every bit of the trans person’s intimate secrets get plastered all over the court records, making them look like the worst human since Genghis Khan.  All of their assets end up being given over to the spouse, as well as the custody of the children.  The trans person becomes saddled with all the bills and child support.  And, if they have a decent job, they still live paycheck to paycheck.  This one form of injustice can make a person very angry, and usually does.

Other court proceedings have had more devastating results.  Just read over court cases of Christie Lee Littleton and J’Noel Gardiner and you’ll get an idea of what I’m talking about.  Michael Kantaras’ custody case in Florida in 2002 was no picnic for him, even though he won the case.  Peter Oiler lost his discrimination case against Winn Dixie in 2003 and I personally saw how angry he became from that.  The job discrimination case against the Library of Congress involving Diane Schroer still awaits future results.  Hopefully those results won’t increase our anger.  There have been many more court cases where transgender people went to court for discrimination reasons, custody battles and other rights, only to be shown the door for their troubles.  Did they become angry?  Sure they did.  Oh yes, there have been some wins, but the percentage seems very low, making the anger very high.

Various forms of discrimination and injustice can make transgender people angry.  Violence is another.  In 1998, the Remembering Our Dead list came into existence with about 100 names.  Today, the list contains over 400 names.  You can find the updated list and all of the associated information with the International Transgender Day of Remembrance on this new site.  Those are the most drastic examples of violence against transgender people.

In the recent survey done by the Transgender American Veterans Association, we asked, “Have you ever been a victim of violence?”  Out of 821 transgender veterans who answered that question, 211 said “Yes.”  That comes to 25.7%.  When asked, “Have you ever been raped?” 128 out of 813 said “Yes.”  We also asked, “Have you ever been physically assaulted at a VA facility?” and seven out of 313 said “Yes.”  That comes to 2.2%.  All of this shows that one out of every four transgender people have faced some form of violence.  Not only do these numbers anger the people who have faced the violence, but it also angers the entire community.

Others things seem to anger transgender people.  I will name three things that have been the focus of many transgender people’s anger for nearly a year now.  HRC, ENDA and Barney Frank.  Need I say more?  Barney Frank began the process of splitting up the LGBT community, and even caused a rift within the transgender community when he substituted a fully inclusive ENDA with a non-inclusive one.  Joe Solmonese promised that HRC would only support a fully inclusive ENDA and HRC went back on his word two weeks later.

After that, trans people who worked with HRC jumped ship and others, sensing a vacuum or a chance to “get ahead,” filled their places.  Just saying nice things about HRC or trying to quell the anger of others can get you hate mail.  I lost a friend because of this anger.  Of course, I cannot condense all of the events and all of the feelings of the last year into two paragraphs.  Suffices to say, anger has played a huge part of the feelings by the transgender community when it comes to what some may characterize as our “Axis of Evil.”

When I wrote articles of love and me finding love, I felt extreme joy and happiness.  Writing this article about anger has not been a pleasant task.  Several of the examples I used have caused me to become angry, both in the past and today.  No one can quantify anger, or to really define it.  I just hope that when people read this, they may have a little better understanding on why you see transgender people get angry.  Just remember this.  What you hear them say or write just might be the tip of their anger.  Many different things could cause a transgender person to become angry.  Many things.

(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

Rebecca “Becky” is probably one of the top trans bloggers in the country, with articles that appear in some of the most visible LGBTQ blogs on the Internet, including The Bilerico Project. She also hosts her own talk show, “The Rebecca Juro Show,” on QMORadio, Thursdays at 7 PM. Becky has been one of my inspirations in starting my own blog.

If there’s anything you can count on the city of San Francisco for when it comes to LGBT rights and community support, it’s that even when they’re not on the very leading edge of something, they’ll still do it bigger, better, and more fabulously than anywhere else. New York, Philadelphia, and several other major cities have had protests and demonstrations against the Human Rights Campaign at their local fundraising events, but what’s waiting for HRC in San Francisco on July 26th, when they hold their next fundraising dinner in that city, is likely to make the rest look like a warmup act.

Angela has been an activist for the transgender community is some form or another for the last 42 years. Some of our community’s activists weren’t even born then. She has been on the board of NTAC, It’s Time, North Carolina and the several other organizations too numberous to mention. Currently, she serves as the Vice President of the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) and is one of its Co-Founders. Also, Angela is one of my closest friends.

“Our Opposition Testifies Against Us”

Before I report on the opposition, I need to mention the testimony of Dr. Bill Hendricks of the Dow Chemical Company, who was a witness from the corporate sector. He addressed the hiring of Transgender employees and Dow’s perspective about what has happened to them.

During his testimony, I could not help but think of the work that is being done all over the country today in corporations and businesses to broaden their HR policies to include Transgender people. I specifically want to mention the work done along those lines by Donna Rose and Jamison Green, who felt compelled to “draw the line” when it came to what we used to call “biting the apple.” They recruited the favor of many HR executives in their work on behalf of our community.

I appreciate a company like Dow and many others being inclusive. I also know that they are obtaining loyal, hard working and intelligent employees in the process, people who also really appreciate their jobs.

With 48,000 employees, working in 150 countries across the world, I was rather set back to hear that they have only experienced one person transitioning. I could not help but wonder about that single employee who transitioned at Dow since 2005. That would be two and a half years, give or take a few months. I may be stepping on a few toes here in saying that it is strange for a company of 48,000 employees to have only one Transgender person who they know about, when they probably have hundreds of Transgender people working for them. I heard this perspective echoed throughout the hearing. Most people feel that the only real Transgender people who are discriminated against are those who wish to transition on the job. This assumption is ridiculous.

(Break)

Dr. Hendricks read from a script, so I am not sure how the body of his address was put together or how much input Transgender groups made in coaching him. But, I feel that they missed an important point and an important opportunity for a major corporation to state that they know they have hundreds of Transgender employees and that they would not fire them if did come out. Dow would go on record as protecting their job also, even if their employee did not want to transition. In fact, I would have liked to have seen that one person who transitioned at Dow speak for her company at the hearing. Perhaps these are a few things that people might think about at the next hearing.

One of the things that bothered me about this testimony is that it came from a corporation. I would have liked to have seen a representative from the Labor and Union sectors testify. Perhaps, someone who would speak for the vast majority of Trans people, who work below the corporate level every day might make a compelling statement. I would have liked to have heard if they have had any problems with the Transgender workforce who were lucky enough to have jobs in the trucking, construction, transportation, medical and law enforcement sectors. I would also have liked to hear them testify as the ability of the common workforce to adapt to our situation.

Now we move on to the opponents at the hearing, the first of which is JC Miller, a lawyer and partner at the firm of Thompson Hine.

I find it a good thing to look for statements in the opposition’s testimony which provide hard evidence of the way they plan their attacks, especially the legal attacks instead of the moral ones used by people like James Dobson and his fascist tribe. Ms. Miller’s testimony gave us many directions as to where the legal attacks will come from. I think that when listening to her clear testimony, we hear their important need to emphasize “fears”, if not “great fears.” That was the seed she was paid to sow.

However, we will see the primary legal attack fall into the category of “definitions.” Who are Transgender people legally? What constitutes a Transgender person to those who aren’t sure and even some who think they’re sure in our community? As she put it, “There will be problems with language and definitions.”

We all know about this slippery slope of clearly defining and putting us into boxes to break us down and play one against the other. It may come in the form of, “Well you TS’s are OK but we don’t know about these part time dressers or those drag queens.” We know that this is coming and will be thrown up as a fear just as often as the bathroom issue is. Sadly, we already have people in our own community buying into this way of thinking.

This also points to the fact that we are all in this together and we need to stay together on the issue of gender expression and identity. My friends on the Hopi reservation in Arizona have identified 32 different genders in their society. Perhaps Ms. Miller might like to find out how they define those 32 genders before she calls for the need to do the same thing about the entire Transgender Community. The Hopis seem to have worked well with them for over 10,000+ years

I am not sure about her statement regarding mannerisms. I would assume that any reference to mannerisms would include protection for effeminate males and masculine females who may not identify as being Transgender. That being the case, she tried to limit the discussion to one type of Transgender person and eliminate protections for others.

Ms. Miller moved on to “shared facilities.” A groan was heard from the audience. Her references to “carving out” a section of the legislation that will especially talk about rest rooms told a lot about her thought process. Their hot button issue of the bathrooms was debunked by Shannon Minter, showing strong evidence that this “straw man issue” had a lot of history to prove this was really a non-issue. If they can accomplish anything in rewording ENDA, it would be to “carved out” areas to provide special exemptions for religious organizations and small businesses, all to further excuse certain parties from having to deal with Transgender people in the workplace. Barney Frank has already bent to their will on this issue in both versions of ENDA.

We have given away too much already in the legislation negotiated by Barney Frank and HRC. Like Donna Rose and Jamison Green, it’s time to draw the line in the sand and not give any more ground. Next year, if the Democrats win, I hope the talk about ENDA becomes, “What are you going to put back in the legislation instead of taking more things out?” This again can refer back to the opposition’s need for definitions so they can create additional targets to “carve out” more of us.

Ms. Miller also brought up a “huge problem of notification”. Are you kidding me? Will an employer have to accept the transition of an employee one day and immediately start construction on a new set of rest room facilities the next day? This is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard.

Ms. Miller should have turned directly to her right and asked Dr. Lawrence if that was what Dow had to do. Or she could have gone to any of the over 300 companies that have inclusive policies and have Transgender employees to ask them if they had proper notification and what happened immediately after.

Another point brought up was jurisdictional problems. The opposition wants Congress people to make sure that they pass federal legislation to not back efforts in the states to pass their inclusive laws. My big question on this is, “Why can’t we chew gum and walk at the same time?” It also reminds me of one of my other favorite sayings, “We have to fight on all fronts.”

Ms. Miller called in the reserves by bringing up “prevailing costs” even though she did not mention what they might be or what she referred to. She finally ended with the specter of “frivolous lawsuits” from things like looking through key holes in the rest rooms. Now that was really reaching. Ms. Miller’s testimony might be summarized as the introduction of “fears” to deny people of their rights. But never the less, it was informative in learning about some of their arguments.

The testimony of the next witness, Mr. Glen Lavy, Sr. Council for the Alliance Defense Fund actually made my skin crawl. It was like listening to someone arguing against the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I felt amused by Mr. Lavy’s fear of sitting in a room full of Transgender people and affirmed my belief that Transgender people have a power and presence that can literally make people like Lavy writhe in anger and fear. Of course Lavy sat directly next to Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti, who looked at him directly as he made his address. She had that look she got when people didn’t shut up and listen to her when she ran the Southern Comfort Conference. I think an intimidating look might be the expression that came to mind. Being a religious righter, Mr. Lavy had entered into his version of the The Twilight Zone and his presentation sounded like it.

Every point of Mr. Lavy’s testimony against us was so laden with fear that one by one, each point could have been defeated and torn to shreds by almost any Transgender person with even a little experience.

His position on employment rights for Trans people, violating the rights of employers was preposterous and absurd. Only outdone by his next statement that employers not having any means of knowing an employee’s views.

Then Lavy launched into this comparison of race and gender which left me astounded. Apparently he thinks that all Transgender people are passable and out to fool employers and make them all look like fools after they pop the big news about who they are. His argument would make you think that back before the Civil Rights Act that if an employer were to hire a light skinned African American who may have passed as white, would they have had the right to fire that person for not telling them that they were not actually white?

After that, Mr. Lavy stated that religion is not protected under Title 7, so why should Transgender people in the workplace be protected? It certainly takes a “sharp” legal mind to come up with that excuse, seeing as that freedom of religion was addressed by the founding fathers in the Constitution already. Chairman Rob Andrews took Mr. Lavy to task during the questioning phase, absolutely cutting him to shreds and leaving him speechless, defenseless and looking as stupid and prejudicial as his specious arguments.

Mr. Lavy’s flimsy statements then moved to our old friend, the bathroom issue.

We could all go on forever about the bathroom issue and we all know that this was going to be brought up somewhere in the opposition testimony, if not in more than one place. It was inevitable. His first shot across the bow was that employers cannot accommodate the rest room needs of Transgender people. My answer to that is that architects cannot seem to accommodate the bathroom needs of people who are not Transgender.

As a contractor, I know that there are certain spaces inside of every building which architects, planners and employers consider “bad space.” The bathroom ranks right up there in the category of “bad space” along with janitor’s closet and mechanical rooms. If employers had any sense – and some already do – they would probably prefer to have a single unisex bathroom, which would cut down on 50% of the construction cost for bathrooms in every project budget.

However, since we all are familiar with this argument and grow tired of it, we can finally end Mr. Lavy’s testimony with his statement (fairy tale) about a fictitious transgender bus driver in Utah whose major problem was finding a bathroom on her changing bus route because she does not have a permanent route. Mr. Lavy expected this to be a strong supportive example in his favor and I hate to pop his bubble, but this should be traceable for anyone who wants to waste the time looking for this bus driver in the Transgender community.

A lot of things made me mad about Mr. Lavy’s testimony, but the one thing that really made me incensed was that someone like James Dobson did not have the intestinal fortitude to face Congress himself. Perhaps he felt that it was below him. But I would certainly have liked to see him subjected to the same cross examination that Lavy got from the Chair after all the witnesses made their statements. In fact, Dobson is too afraid to show up at such a hearing because he knows that he would be made to look in public exactly like what he is, a pompous, arrogant, self righteous, right wing, radical, conservative, nut case. All we will hear is his constant rants from a distance.

Video clips from the Hearing here.

Audio of the entire Hearing here.

Next: Congress comes out to the Transgender Community – Part 4

“Final testimonies and Summary of the Hearings”

Angela has been an activist for the transgender community is some form or another for the last 42 years. Some of our community’s activists weren’t even born then. She has been on the board of NTAC, It’s Time, North Carolina and the several other organizations too numberous to mention. Currently, she serves as the Vice President of the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) and is one of its Co-Founders. Also, Angela is one of my closest friends.

It was my great privilege to attend the recent hearings held in Washington, DC this week on Transgender Unemployment, as the representative from the Transgender American Veterans Association, TAVA. My thoughts are fresh from the hearing and my sense of having to be there to witness an historic moment in our community was more than justified.

I pleasure myself sometimes in thinking that I am a person of vision. Only those who have been active in the Transgender Community for a few years may understand it. In my fondest visions of the past concerning our community, I would have to be the Transgender reincarnation of Nostradamus to have been able to predict our community giving testimony at a Congressional Hearing about Trans Unemployment problems. We all know that this is at the heart of so many of our long list of problems.

(Break)

Well, that would be a lie. There are many that made this hearing possible and some have passed on, like Christine Jorgenson, and many others, but many are still in this fight to the end. Many of those people had visions also for our community and still do. These hearings are confirmation of many of those visions that hard, hard time and sacrifices made possible. There are the heroic efforts of those who work in DC and take the flack from this community, but still manage to hang in there and do a great job. They are equal to or better than many organizations who have been around much longer and have done this by being among those people and working with those groups and with their assistance.

Groups like NGLTF, United ENDA, ACLU, the DNC, IFGE, AVER, SLDN and TAVA are changing our lives and from what I witnessed this Thursday. We need to support them in every way that we can. Sorry, I’m leaving out the fine work that HRC did in helping and advising on getting this hearing. But, Joe Solmonese’s apology for “misspeaking” to a small and closed gathering of Transgender people in Atlanta is not the same as apologizing to our community.

This hearing is remarkable to me, because it means that there are people in high places, in places that we never thought they would be, finally ready to listen to our Transgender children and their parents in PFLAG, our Transgender Veterans in TAVA. They are reading our emails and letters about ENDA. This hearing is not our coming out to them, but it is they who are coming out to us and asking us to show them where it hurts and why it does, to be a Transgender person in America. Certainly an event worthy of all Transgender people in America helps us sympathize with how Michelle Obama felt when she said “this is the first time in my adult life I have felt proud to be an American.” Yes, Ms. Obama, I understand.

As my friend Pamela in Charlotte might say, some of us survivors have to pinch ourselves from time to time so that we know that we are not just dreaming about events that have been occurring over the past five years. It is truly a testament to those survivors who have fought for so many years and to the many younger activists who have taken up the cause of Trans Equality and been doing such a professional and outstanding job.

We all step up on the shoulders of those before us and so many names come to mind. From the past to the present, I have nothing but respect and admiration for their sacrifices and hard work. From the hundreds of support groups that meet across the country in every city and town on every Saturday night, to those who lobby and work hard in DC, we are all working for that person we don’t yet know in the closet that has not been able to live and be who they are without fear.

Other perspectives about the hearing that you may read will, I think, be different than mine, but they revolve around the same theme of “community.” This is a word that has finally reached a maturity and recognition that even the Congress of the United States is willing to work with and understand.

My perspectives have been dragged through the hearts and souls of hundreds of support group meetings and thousands of Transgender friends I have known over many years. The reality of this hearing, in part, is the culmination of a long journey and the promise of a better future for our children, our families and us.

Now the trip.

After suffering for a few days earlier in the week with a case of food poisoning, the day before the hearing left me spent and dehydrated, but finally free of my own personal rest room issues and the determination that the four hour trip North from Raleigh to DC had to be made.

I usually stay at the Red Roof Inn in Alexandria when going to DC because I have to blanch at paying $250.00/night for a room inside the beltline. Wednesday evening I arrived without a problem and tried to sleep. It was one of those restless nights that I did not need. You just know that tomorrow is going to be special, like Christmas.

Waking and getting ready, I didn’t even stop for coffee in the lobby and headed straight for the Capital with my little map on the passenger seat to guide me. I drove into town and found a place to park within a few miles from the Rayburn Building where the hearing was to be held in room 2175. I have lobbied in the halls of this building many times before, but this time it was really a different feeling of anticipation.

After going through the scanning and security, I was stopped due to some of the jewelry I was wearing (a TAVA badge) and the officers, who were right on cue with the “stand here please mam” and their getting a female officer to pat me down acted like they were very thoroughly trained in Transgender 101 before I got there. I had to laugh a little inside, thinking about being patted down by a female officer in the Rayburn Building and all the times in years past when I was fearful of just such a thing happening, but in the neighborhood police station. Those sure were the good old days.

Approaching the hearing room, people were lined up outside in the hallway waiting for the doors to open. Standing against the wall at least 70 people had assembled and were all talking nervously and exchanging business cards. Then I noticed some familiar faces like Donna Cartwright, Mara Keisling, Shannon Minter, Sabrina Marcus, Lisa Mottet and others pop out of the crowd with warm smiles and excited hugs.

I was surprised to meet others there who had traveled from Phoenix, San Diego, New York, Kansas, Ohio, and many other places who also felt the need to be there to witness an important moment for our community. I also met supporters from HRC and NGLTF and other organizations like the ACLU who sensed this as a special moment in time and had to be present. They are had some part in the planning of this hearing.

After a short while, a very dictatorial young lady came out into the hall, announced that she would only allow 45 people inside the hearing room because that is all the room she had and that she was handing out passes so we all had to line up against the wall. Those who did not get a pass could go to the hearing room one floor above and watch the hearing from there on their closed circuit screens.

I felt very safe in my position and being able to get a ticket and had even prearranged with Mara to have a “seat sitter” in the hearing room save me a chair. Mara asked me that since I had a ticket, would I mind giving up the seat that was being held for me. Not a problem. But now there was a quiet reshuffling going on and I noticed a rather large contingent of HRC folks begin to move to the front of the line

Standing next to me was a gentleman who I had met from HRC who had worked with Donna Rose and Jamison Green when they had worked for HRC in their corporation and employment area and we had discussed his work. He is not a “policy person”. I turned to him and quietly told him that if he did not go and tell his co-workers to get back in line or give their tickets to Transgender people waiting in line, I would immediately start my own version of an anti HRC protest on the spot, right there, right now. Noting that if anyone deserved the right to sit in that hearing room it should be Transgender people.

He looked at me and smiled until someone next to me told him “Oh, she is serious and she will do it”. He went to talk to them and came back and told me that they would be watching the hearing from upstairs in the other room. I breathed a small sigh of relief, knowing that I would not have to make my point further, but also happy that they understood my concerns.

The doors opened and in we went. 30’ ceilings, oak everywhere, curtains over the windows and three rows of bleacher type oak desks side by side from one side of the room to the other, where Congress persons could look down at the table in the center of the room, casting their eyes down to the long table on the floor level where the witnesses sat.

After some milling around and shaking hands, the Congress people took their seats on both sides of the Committee Chairman, Congressman Rob Andrews, a proud graduate of the Cornell Law School, close to my old home town and a place that I went to at least once a year to give a class on us, convened the hearing. I immediately wondered and hoped that he was in one of those classes.

The rules of the hearing were laid down by the Congressman as to length of time for each witness to speak and testify and we were of to the races with a statement made by the Chair that could only be described as eloquent, relevant, persuasive, accurate, forceful and committed to a fair presentation, remembering that cause by law had to be proven, but that also the recent ENDA law and all the fuss and bother out there that the non-inclusive version generated from the GLBT community, helped to lay a groundwork for the need for this hearing. Well, in so many words at least.

Of the seven chairs at the table, only two were occupied. One seat was filled by Congressman Barney Frank and the other by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. The testimony began with Ms. Baldwin and my account and views of the testimony are as follows, I trust that you all will listen, or have listened to it yourself:

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Minnesota was first to speak. When reading from a script, she was less effective but still meaningful. When telling the story about being an attorney and representing a Transperson who was fired from their job when announcing her gender to her employer, Tammy Baldwin speaks the best. When talking from her heart, she is the most effective and she needs no script to get the message across. If I had any complaint at all about her testimony, it was in her references to “being trapped in the wrong body”. This one statement advances us immediately into the areas of doubting if she doesn’t need some further training about the diversity of the Transgender Community.

Video clips from the Hearing here.

Audio of the entire Hearing here.

Part 2 Our older “buddy” statesman, Congressman Barney Frank.

]]> http://www.monicahelms.com/blog/tava/congress-comes-out-to-the-transgender-community-part-1.htm/feed 0 http://www.monicahelms.com/blog/love/an-open-letter-to-hrc.htm http://www.monicahelms.com/blog/love/an-open-letter-to-hrc.htm#comments Mon, 12 May 2008 21:17:36 +0000 Monica Helms http://www.monicahelms.com/blog/?p=124 An Open Letter to HRC

Dear HRC,

Many things have happened since Southern Comfort, 2007. Transgender people have been taken to extreme heights of hope and depths of despair, all in a very short time. Words flowed back and forth between both sides of the issue, many that were not very pleasant to hear. We said them and they filled pages and pages of blogs and web sites across the WWW. History will judge us all harshly when that time comes. Are we prepared for what will be found? We can only speak for ourselves, individually.

That is why I am writing this letter. I have to speak for myself, as an individual, and not as a so-called leader in the transgender community. I have struggled these past months; with images of disadvantaged trans people I have known flooding my mind. I need to start following the teaching of Jesus, because in His words I find comfort. I need to settle with you, HRC.

I discovered that in order for me to better serve Jesus and do what He has set before me, whatever that may be, I have to forgive those who have hurt me. I have resisted for a long time the need to forgive you, because the hurt is so very deep. I keep seeing Alice Johnston in my mind. Because HRC was not willing to fight for total equality, Alice felt she had no alternative but to take her own life. However, my Pastor reminded me that Alice is with God and she is now without worry. Yes, she is, and I forgive you.

I have carried my anger toward you for a long time and I have acted foolishly because of it. I cannot be expected to do something out of love for the transgender community if I carry around anger toward those who have hurt me. Anger and love cannot occupy the same space at the same time. It is against the laws of physics. It is also hypocritical to my faith.

I know that it will be difficult for some of my friends in the transgender community to understand why I am forgiving you. It is the risk I have to take if I am to be about justice, act mercifully and walk humbly with God. Each person has to settle this with their God in their own way, including any of you on the Board of HRC who saw fit to support removing us from equality. It is not my place to judge.

There will be times in the future where you will once again anger the transgender community. I cannot let those moments detract me from what I am doing and what I can do to help my community. The relevance of your organization has been minimized by the greater good of my community. My God will always guide my heart and my soul on the path of inclusion, no matter what the cost.

I only hope that all of us, the HRC Board included, can be shown a way to do justice that includes all the letters of our community. When you fall short, I will be there to remind you. When you step ahead, I will be there to honor you. I hope you will forgive me for my harsh words and judgment as I have forgiven you for excluding the people of my community from your process. I pray that one day, you too will see that equality is for all and not just for those who pass as “gender normal.”

So, I forgive you and I hope you have a peaceful life.

Monica F. Helms

Marietta, GA

At the last minute, I didn’t know if I could attend the Atlanta HRC Dinner protest in front of the Hyatt Regency, May 3, 2008. Work had me signed up to do 2 hours of overtime right in the middle of when the protest was scheduled. Luckily, I was able to trade the hours to a co-worker.

On Saturday, I had to formulate a plan to talk with the most people I could at the dinner. But in order to do that, I needed to go inside the “Belly of the Beast.” Being a former submariner, I was familiar with submarine war tactics, which have helped me as an activist in the past. You sneak into an enemy’s port, lay a few torpedoes in the sides of their ships, then slip silently away. They never know what hit them.

(Break)

For this dinner, I needed a disguise, in other words, a “duck blind.” When hunting ducks, the hunters have to blend into the environment, so they build a camouflage enclosure where they can see the ducks, but the ducks cannot see them. For this, I would wear my long evening gown that had no back. It’s also how spies blend into a fancy party. “My name is Bond. Jane Bond.” I was ready to do some shaking AND stirring. Of course, I probably blew my cover when I wore my “Trans and Proud” and “TAVA” buttons.

I knew that I would not get into the dinner without a ticket and I had no intention of buying one. However, they always had their Silent Auction before the dinner and you didn’t have to have a dinner ticket to go in there.

When I arrived at the Hyatt, two people were already handing out flyers and holding signs. Sir Jesse was outside and Anneliese was just inside the hotel door, handing out flyers as people came in. Others who arrived later were Jamie, Jae, Marisa, Dante, Betty and a friend of hers, Ghetto Gospel.

I heard earlier from Betty that on Thursday, May 1^st, Joe Solmonese had a meeting with a half dozen transgender people here in Georgia. I wasn’t invited, nor was a few other transgender people who have worked at the national level, such as Dana Owings, Kristin Reichman and Cole Thaler from Lambda Legal. I’m willing to bet it was not accidental.

I was told that Joe “. . . apologized for misspeaking at Southern Comfort . . .” and that “. . . had he known what was going to have happen, he wouldn’t have said what he had said.” To me that translates to “HRC has no integrity when it comes to speaking to transgender people and I have the backbone of a jelly fish.” George Orwell would be so proud.

Once inside, I strolled into the Silent Auction like I belonged there. In reality, if HRC was more supportive of transgender people and their needs, then I would have indeed belonged there. But, I was nothing more than an interloper in the game of intrigue. Okay, so I’m getting a bit melodramatic.

The first thing that I noticed was that in a city that has a large population of African Americans, the crowd looked distinctly white and distinctly male. There were some attendees who were People of Color and there were attendees who were female, but where I saw the most diversity was with the “hired help” and the volunteers. Interesting enough, one of the dinner’s co-chairs was an African American woman.

The theme for the evening was a Las Vegas casino, complete with the bright lights, Vegas showgirls and an Elvis impersonator. I mingled with the crowd, talking to various people there, some who openly admitted they were part of HRC’s organization. I spoke with one woman who touted HRC’s “wonderful” Corporate Equality Index, having no idea I would be the wrong person to try and convince their CEI was so “perfect.” I proceeded to point out that my 100% company screwed me over simply because I’m trans when I needed a medically necessary operation that others in the company can get.

I told the woman the bar for transgender medical issues was set so low that an ant could jump over it. HRC does that to falsely inflate the numbers on the 100% list and to placate the corporations by allowing them to medically mistreat their transgender employees, just as long as their gay and lesbian employees are treated fairly. Transgender people don’t need to be treated fairly, by HRC’s standards.

During my journey through “Never-Never Land,” I had a chance to speak to the Beast Master himself, Joe Solmonese. I was nice and I complimented him on how appropriate the casino theme for the dinner was. “This is such a perfect theme you have here, Joe. It’s all about gambling . . . and you’re gambling with people’s lives.” I suspect he didn’t appreciate that.

Of course, I wasn’t going to stop there. I informed him about the Transgender Veterans Survey, conducted by TAVA that had just ended and it had 827 responses to it. Besides the military and VA-related questions in the survey, we had a great deal of general questions. I said he needs to see how many of our transgender veterans were unemployed and under-employed, and how many have been discriminated on the job. It didn’t seem to faze him. Ask me if I’m surprised.

Interesting, the number of transgender veterans who took our survey far surpasses the number of responses on the questionable survey HRC conducted to see if transgender people should be in ENDA. Also, you have to factor in the small population our respondents came from to really get the impact.

Then I asked Solmonese why I didn’t get an E-mail inviting me to the meeting on Thursday. He said, “I don’t know who put that together.” Ah, really? Does he expect me to believe he’s that clueless on something as important as a meeting? He then asked me, “What did you hear of the meeting?” I responded by saying, “That it took place and I wasn’t invited.” Also, the media wasn’t invited. I guess he doesn’t want to take a chance of going on record with what he says to transgender people. I wonder why.

The one thing that really set me off was when I had a chance to speak with a person I thought was a friend. He is an effeminate gay man who is the partner of a lawyer who I know through SLDN and the American Veterans for Equal Rights. He proceeded to tell me about his four-hour session at the spa to get ready for the event. I told him I was there to educate people on the need for a fully inclusive ENDA.

He said, “Oh, I don’t support that at all. They said there aren’t enough votes with transgender people in the bill. Besides, we need a win.”

I was pissed. “So, you want a win on the backs of millions of transgender people?” He tried to say something, but I continued. “You are an effeminate gay man and without Gender Identity and Gender Expression in ENDA, you’re just as fucked as transgender people. You and butch lesbians will be screwed, just like me.” He didn’t respond to that. Besides, he had his sugar daddy, so to hell with everyone else. I walked away.

The best thing I found out was when I went back outside to join the protest. Betty, a member of the Atlanta Pride Committee, informed me that they just had a vote that day to turn down HRC’s offer to be a sponsor for this year’s Pride. In a year where the expenses have increased in putting on Atlanta Pride, they turned down $5000 from HRC because of their stance on ENDA. I always knew I loved the people on the Atlanta Pride Committee, but this made me love them even more. I hope others will take that stance with HRC at their pride events. Betty also informed me that a trans man will be the Grand Marshall for the Pride Parade.

So much for the Atlanta HRC Dinner. I may not have made an impact on many people, but a friend reminded me that every little bit helps. I want to express my appreciation to Jamie Roberts and Sir Jesse McNulty for putting this together. It’s people like them and the Atlanta Pride Committee who make me proud to live in Georgia.

(Break)

Subject: Atlanta Human Rights Campaign Dinner Invite

Sent to Pastor Paul Turner, Senior Pastor Gentle Spirit Church, Atlanta, GA, Monday, April 21, 2008, in regards to the HRC Atlanta Dinner, scheduled for May 3, 2008

Thank you for the invitation…However, I will not participate with anything involving HRC until the Transgender Community is really part of the LGBTQI they so often say they represent.

There are those in our community who think I am being “childish” and “foolish” about this, however, I cannot nor will I stand with an organization which uses a part of our community as a political chess piece.

I cannot nor will I stand silently by while our sisters and brothers in the Transgender community are told they must wait for protection, or “they must understand we are not there yet”. Every year I stand at the State Capital to hear more names read of our sisters and brothers who have been slaughtered. Yet, HRC does not see the need to take a stand on their behalf? The HRC really thinks it is OK to have just LGB?

I will once again say:

There is no going forward if everyone is not with us.

This is not Animal Farm where “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others”!

HRC has made and continues to make a horrible and tragic miscalculation…a poll of 500 people does not speak for the entire LGBTQ community.

HRC sold it’s sisters and brothers down the river for a bill they knew was not going to pass or have a chance in hell of becoming law. So what better time then to take a moral and courageous stand?

Does HRC not understand the Transgender community is in real and serious danger? When a house is on fire you don’t stand outside and decide whom you are going to rescue, the attempt is made for all.

Of course what HRC has forgotten is it was these folks who started the whole “gay rights” movement we know today when they stood toe to high heal with the New York City police department at Stonewall.

HRC confidently forgets the Trans community has been with us every step of this bloody fight for our rights, our self worth and our very souls.

HRC forgets or ignores that each day when a trans person gets out of bed and steps into the world it may in fact be their last day.

If the hypocrites in congress don’t want transgender people in a bill of protection for LGBTQI folks, then there should be no bill for consideration…not have HRC bargaining and agreeing that a part of our community is expendable and could simply wait for another day.

By not including Transgender people in any bill sent to the floor of congress y’all send a clear message to everyone concerned that the transgender community is somehow not on equal footing with the rest of the community.

This is wrong and HRC knows it. Pastorally speaking HRC has chosen to be the Esther who didn’t bother to go before the King (Esther 4 New International Version).

Shame on you. I wonder how many Transgender people will die because even HRC does not think they are worthy of protection? This was and is a time for leadership, guts and courage.

It has been said a bill couldn’t get through with Trans as apart of it, that it would be defeated…well my friends you may have won the battle with the US Congress but HRC has made themselves hypocrites in the truest sense of the word.

“The Human Rights Campaign is the nations largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality” Just where does the needs of the transgender community meet HRC’s definition of civil rights if not within ENDA?

I know this doesn’t mean a hell of lot to you, as I am not one of the high profile pastor’s for which HRC has fooled into believing they care about the total community. Yet, how does one deal with a statement from your Executive Director which as it turns out was a flat out lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8Cw

This statement was made in front of a room full of Transgender folks. So did your Executive Director mis-speak? Although I thought his statement was pretty clear. Are we to pretend this statement of support was just to say something nice to the trans community?

I cannot express how sad and disappointed I am in this organization. HRC should know that God’s people are not expendable at any price!

The recent attempts to “explain” to “sooth”, to “justify”. to “spin” this despicable act on the part of HRC is arrogant, shameful and not worthy of a people who want our money so they can “fight for our rights”

I am no longer a supporter of HRC, I will not honor their name or pass on their e-mails with their weekly calls for money.

They will not again receive one dime of my money or the church’s and I will certainly encourage folks to find other organizations to support with their hard earned money other then HRC. I do believe there are organizations out there that still understand the meaning of community and that without all the hard work of the Trans community we would be nothing.

There is talk of a calling for a boycott of the HRC dinner in Atlanta as well as any other HRC events in this city that seek our hard earned money. I am inclined to agree with boycotting the dinner and HRC in general. It is an appropriate way to send a message from Atlanta, the cradle of the civil rights movement that if we are not all protected by the law then none of us has protection.

No, I will not be going to this dinner and I would encourage anyone who has a basic sense of fairness, compassion and a sense of community to not go either.

I would encourage Rev. Dennis Meredith not to attend and accept an award from a group of people who are not willing to stand by all who are apart of the community.

Reverend Paul M. Turner

Sr. Pastor

pastorpaul@gentlespirit.org
http://www.gentlespirit.org

*******************************************

From: EBONEE66@aol.com [mailto:EBONEE66@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:38 PM
To: pastorbrad@mindspring.com; EboneesWorld@aol.com
Subject: Human Rights Campaign Dinner Invite

Jason Lowery & Ebonee Bradford Cordially invites you to attend the 21st Annual Human Rights Campaign Dinner. Keynote speaker Kathy Nahjimy, Entertainment the incomprable crystal waters! tickets are still available for may 3, 2008

Awardees: Rev dennis meredith, Tabernacle Baptist Atl.-Dan Bradley Humunitarian Award/ Frank Bragg Metrotainment cafe/leon allen & Winston Johnson Community leadership award. www.boxofficetickets.com or www.atlantahrcdinner.org