That’s to dramatic to be true, I bet she wanted to leave anyway.
I care. HRC has made it quite clear that the ‘T’s in LGBT are of a lesser importance than the rest. I too find that unacceptable.
It is “trying” to become more inclusive? And then buy your way in for £150. That is not trying.
Would you work for people who think you are less than others?
The transgenders are part of LGBT because we don’t want to be judged over what it is like to be a man or a women. My genitals and what I do with it is nobodies business!
I care too.
Go Mooz. Kick him in the eggs.
I care! I also care that people such as yourself, “don’t care” Because the lbg has been so complacent and un-caring, That Trans persons are being murdered at an alarming rate. TDOR is tomorrow! We will remember our dead as you go merrily skipping along without one iota of concern for a denigrated class of people! Did you know that the U.S. is in the # 2 spot for the most trans murders? Did you also know that we as a class are as much as 26 times more likely to be murdered, as compared to cis identified persons? Think a bit huh?
Stand for what is important to you. Good for her.
Given the hate gay people have suffered, anyone adding a negative remarks should work on their emotional and intellectual disabilty-unconscious, selfish pricks.
She did the right thing! HRC has a forty year history of trashing Trans identified persons. You should see the mess they made in my home state of Colorado in regard to S.B.200 -Trans rights for co.. Got it completely subjugated, and pretty much done in. Likely to secure marriage rights…nice look at where that got all of us…They lost, and the Trans community here really lost out big!
Your post is one-side and erroneous. HRC was fonded in 1980 and therefore cannot have a “forty year history of trashing Trans identified persons”. Making strategic decisions but still calling for GLBT equality is not the same as “trashing”.
“Some transgender people have criticized the HRC for its stance on the 2007 version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which enumerated sexual orientation as a protected category but not gender identity and expression. Once the legislation was submitted by Rep. Barney Frank, HRC officially neither opposed nor supported it. This followed a speech by former HRC President Joe Solmonese at the transgender Southern Comfort Conference the previous month, where he said that HRC “oppose[d] any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive.” HRC later explained it could not actively support a non-inclusive bill, but did not oppose it because the legislation would strategically advance long-term efforts to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA.”
Oop’s, my bad…they have a 32 tear history of trashing us! My point remains the same. Strategically playing games with our lives is more like it! Strategic planning that allows for continued deaths. Kind of like trickle down economics…It does not work! GENDA The New York version of ENDA…well, were still waiting on this one ten years later, and in Maryland it has also been 10+ years. All strategically planned huh? http://www.equalitymaryland.org/uploads/4380/original/trans.. And well hey, What happened to Senate Bill 200 in Colorado was strategically planned as well! We Had rights…Hard won rights, and the BLG center here along with HRC, and no doubt, the Gill Foundation, just bartered them right, well, “gone”…Zilch…Notta! We only have the illusion of having rights now! Gee Thanks HRC! Your argument seems weak to me Mr. Myers!
David, the HRC has thrown the T under the bus several times. 2007 was by far the most egregious. It was the HRC on one side supporting an LGB only ENDA and literally hundreds of organizations on the other side demanding a fully inclusive ENDA. Congress ignored what the community wanted and said they did what the HRC wanted. As a result I will never be a member or contribute. That said I think it was counter-productive for this women to quit her job.
Maybe I should share my story why I think transgenders are part of LGBT.
I am a homosexual man, but as a kid I was often mistaken for a girl. I looked like a girl, played with girls, did girly things and liked boys. I thought, I should have been a girl. Couldn’t possibly be a filthy homo! But puberty set in quite early, got lots of body hair and a beard, and was never mistaken for a girl again.
Only then I realized I WAS a filthy homo! I was so relieved that I didn’t need to go through all those operations. But that could have been me.
What a strength and courage those people must have. How awful those rejections, especially from the LGB’s (they should know what that feels like), must be. Only my utter respect for the transgenders (and everyone in between). I will fight with you!
Thanks for your support, Mooz. This trans man appreciates it. :) Your story’s interesting. You hit the nail on the head when you realised that being feminine and liking boys doesn’t mean you’re actually supposed to be girl. For me, gender stereotypes and sexuality were the least important triggers in realising I was transgender. I didn’t really transition because I was a lesbian and liked masculine things, I transitioned because I couldn’t stand having a “female” body and being referred to as female and it causes me dysphoria. I’m actually gay, and still the fabulous femme man I always was, I just now have the extra womanly parts that were causing me so much discomfort removed! I think it’s important to distinguish between gender and sexuality as two different and separate concepts, but that doesn’t mean that the “T” doesn’t belong in the acronym. There is lots of overlap between the two communities; we suffer the same discrimination. And there are plenty of LGB trans people!
I too respect transgener persons and have spoken up for them as far back as 1971 when some conservative gay activists were arguing that we should draw a line of “acceptability” just “below” gays and lesbians” and denounce, transexuals, transvestites, and sex workers in order to court the “approval of straight society”. But, I will not trash HRC for making strategic decisions such as not opposing the non-inclusive 2007 Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while still supporting a future inclusive ENDA in the future. The alternative at that time would be correctly called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.
HRC pledged not to support (ie. oppose) a non-inclusive ENDA
An all inclusive ENDA?
or for another view:
Five paragraphs in, Tammy Baldwin opposed the non-inclusive ENDA.
Paragraph 7 quotes Joe Solmonese as saying “we absolutely do not support, in fact, oppose any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive, and we have sent that message loud and clear to the Hill.”
The ‘mis-speak’ is a little too convenient when it appears that the HRC could have been campaigning and fundrainsing for ENDA based on full-inclusion.
ENDA in it’s present form is a non-discrimination act, for some. HRC, imho, should be doing a lot more on this one.