What are the political calculations that govern support of HR 3017, the current ENDA bill? This is what you need to understand if you want to help the bill pass.
Last week, I noted that the largest number of unconfirmed House Democrats on ENDA are in Pennsylvania.(The number of unconfirmed Reps is now down to 45, after Inclusive ENDA members in Florida and Idaho, among other places, confirmed more Representatives' positions.)
The large number of unconfirmed in Pennsylvania is not surprising, given that Pennsylvania was a major battleground state in the 08 election. And it is here that the issues become the most sharply defined, so it is a useful object lesson for all of us. If your Representative is unconfirmed in support of ENDA, they will likely have a version of the issues that the Representatives in Pennsylvania are having. If you're not from Pennsylvania, read this and add in your own representative's name. And email this to a friend in Pennsylvania. Remember, "You've Got A Friend In Pennsylvania."
The most important thing for Members of Congress is to hear real stories from real people in their districts. That way, they know there are people in their district who want this law passed, and it helps them understand the need. Also, while a direct appeal to principles of equality is a good start, it is not sufficient in the sometimes brutal work of realpolitik. What makes a Representative want to support ENDA? What points can be raised to them in a meeting, an email or a phone call? Will the Democrats more likely support ENDA than the Republicans? How do their previous positions play into this? How does their district formation affect their determination?
I use the term "unconfirmed" Representatives advisedly, as oppose opposed to my previous usage of the misleading term "undecided." I received this wise bit of advice from some DC policy wonks. "Undecided" suggests that they are fence-straddlers, whereas, in point of fact, a number of them are Representatives whose past positions suggest they may support HR 3017 and they may have actually decided privately, according to those in the know, but have simply failed as of yet to make a public declaration to alert the rest of us. They may also have made commitments to constituents or lobbyists that we don't know about. But because ENDA unquestionably needs a grassroots effort to pass, all of these members of Congress need to hear from their constituents that we support it.
If you want to sign up to meet with your Pennsylvania Reps in August in your local district, click here. If you're not from Pennsylvania, email this to someone who is.
First off, as a general matter, I would note in any face-to-face meeting, email or telephone call, that this legislation creates no "special rights," but simply requires companies to judge employees on performance, not sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not permit preferential treatment based on quotas. It exempts members of the Armed Forces, veterans' preferences and religious organizations, and does not address domestic partner benefits.
I would also note that job protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are no stranger to Pennsylvania.
Public employees in the state have been protected from job discrimination based on sexual orientation since 2002 and gender identity since 2003 as a result of Executive Order No. 2002-3 on equal employment opportunity.
The federal court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in 2006 that transgender employees are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the rubric of sex discrimination in the case of Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm, Inc., No. Civ.A. 05-243, 2006 WL 456173, at *223 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2006).20 cities all across the state have policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, as well as 44 Fortune 1000 companies and many other companies across Pennsylvania.
I note that I am not including Republican Representatives Bill Shuster, Joseph Pitts and Tim Murphy in this list of unconfirmed. Although I do not know whether they have specifically taken a public position on HR 3017, they all voted against the sexual-orientation only ENDA in 2007 and the hate crimes bill in 2009. They also also received a score of zero from the Human Rights Campaign. (While HRC has been less than consistent with regard to transgender issues, a rating of zero indicates no support of gay rights issues.) It is not impossible that these Republicans could change their minds about ENDA, and I encourage constituents in their districts to schedule meetings with them.
And, remember, though ENDA has not yet been introduced in the Senate, it will be soon and it is not too early to contact U.S. Senators to find out where they stand. So, Pennsylvanians, make sure Senators Specter and Casey hear from you too. More about them and other Senators later.
And so, without further adieu, I introduce "The Unconfirmed."
The Unconfirmed
Kathleen Dahlkemper
<>Representative Dahlkemper (D) represents Pennsylvania's Third Congressional District, which covers the area around Erie, Pennsylvania, in the northwest corner of the state. It's about 100 miles east of Cleveland, Ohio.
Wikipedia has some interesting information about her and the other Representatives discussed here. I recognize that Wikipedia is unreliable except to the extent that it cites documented sources, so I try to keep the information I use from Wikipedia to that which is documented or I can document from other sources. However, it does allow gathering of a lot of information relatively quickly, and I've already spent too many hours writing this post.
Dahlkemper won election to Congress in 2008 against an eight-term Republican incumbent in a 52-48 race. She was aided by large spending by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She is only the third Democrat to represent the district since 1893.
She is pro-life and supports gun rights. Her views are similar in this regard to most of her Democratic colleagues from Pennsylvania including John Murtha, Paul Kanjorski, Tim Holden, Jason Altmire, and Chris Carney. (I suppose, then, that its no suprise that these are the other ENDA unconfirmed Democrats in Pennsylvania.) Speaking of her district, Dahlkemper has said, "It's a moderate district...To go really far to the left would not be representing it." When recently contacted, her office stated that she had not made a decision on HR 3017, the current ENDA bill. She did vote for HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act, which is a good sign that she understands the need for protections.
I think that Rep. Dahlkemper may support ENDA, but will need some convincing. If I were talking to her, one thing I might point out that Erie County has had an ordinance against job discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity since 2002. I would also note that all of the Ohio Democratic caucus, in the more conservative state next door, are supporting HR 3017 (ENDA). I would think, but perhaps not say, that it was really nice of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to spend large amounts to help her win the race.
Contact info: Kathy Dahlkemper (D-03) 202-225-5406 814-456-2038 202-225-3103 Email
Jason Altmire
Representative Altmire (D) represents Pennsylvania's Fourth District, just south of Representative Dahlkemper's district, and just north of Pittsburgh. According to Wikipedia:
Altmire won in 2006 against a three-term incumbent Rebublican considered invulnerable. He won again in 2008 election by a 56-44 margin. He carried a wide lead throughout the campaign and the race was never considered to be competitive.
The 2006 Project Votesmart National Political Awareness Test indicates that he did not then support the addition of sexual orientation to federal employment law. Representative Altmire was not a co-sponsor of the original inclusive ENDA bill in 2007. However, when the vote came to the floor for the vote on the sexual oexual orientation only bill, he voted in favor of it. He also voted for HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act.
I think that Rep. Altmire may support ENDA, but will need some convincing because of his Project Votesmart responses, and the fact that his prior vote on ENDA involved sexual orientation only. One of his major contributors is the AFL-CIO, as well as several other unions If I were talking to Representative Altmire, I would note that the AFL-CIO is solidly behind this inclusive ENDA. I would also point out that nearby Pittsburgh has had a non-discrimination ordinance covering sexual orientation since 1990 and gender identity since 1997.
Contact info: Jason Altmire (D-04) 202-225-2565 724-226-1304 202-226-2274 Email
Glenn Thompson
Representative Thompson, a Republican, represents the Fifth Congressional District, which is to the immediate east of Representative Dahlkemper's district.
According to Wikipedia, after the Republican incumbent retired, Thompson won the 2008 election. While Republicans have generally won over 65% in this district, Thompson won with only 57% of the vote. According to the Washington Post, Thompson has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 91.2% of the time during the current Congress. He voted against HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act. His responses to the 2006 Project Votesmart National Political Awareness Test indicated that he was not supporting addition of sexual orientation to federal employment law.
I think Rep. Thompson may not support ENDA. However, the effect of local constituents meeting face to face and explaining how it affects them personally cannot be underestimated. I don't think calls and emails will cut it.
Contact info: Glenn (GT) Thompson (R-05) 202-225-5121 814-353-0215 202-225-5796 https://forms.house.gov/thompson/contact-form.shtml
Jim Gerlach
Rep. Gerlach represents the 6th Congressional District, a world away from the others described above. The 6th is 300 miles away in the southeast corner of the state, just west of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, of course, has a non-discrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
According to Wikipedia, he has said he's considering a gubernatorial run, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee has contacted him to discuss running for Arlen Specter's seat, so might not be feeling particularly expansive at the moment. However, he was one of only 18 Republicans in the House to cross party lines and vote for HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Acimes Act. He also voted for the sexual-orientation only ENDA in 2007.
In addition, his district is narrowly Republican by the thinnest of thin margins. According to Wikipedia, he barely defeated his Democratic opponent in 2002 by 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent. In 2004, he won by 51.0 percent to 49.0 percent. In 2006, he won by 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent. Gerlach was the only member of the "Philly Trio" of vulnerable Republican Congressmen to survive the 2006 election. He is a member of two moderate political groups, The Republican Main Street Partnership, which supports embryonic stem-cell research, and Republicans for Environmental Protection.
I think Jim Gerlach may support ENDA.
Contact info: Jim Gerlach (R-06) 202-225-4315 610-376-7630 202-225-8440 http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Christopher P. Carney
Rep. Carney represents the 10th Conressional district in the northeastern corner of the state. He is a bit of a political contradiction. He was one of only 17 Democrats to cross party lines to vote against HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act. However, his 2006 Project Votesmart Political Awareness Test showed that he supported the additional of sexual orientation to the federal employment law, and he did vote in favor of the sexual orientation-only ENDA in 2007.
He opposes gay marriage, supports gun rights, and does not favor abortion, but supports family planning and comprehensive reproductive healthcare. While opposing Social Security privatization, he is open to adding private accounts. He supports federal investment in stem cell research, and is an advocate of universal healthcare.
The 10th had been in Republican hands since 1961, and had been made even more Republican when the state legislature cut out heavily Democratic Scranton in an effort to protect the previous Republican incumbent. In 1998 and 2000, the four-term Republican incumbent won by narrow margins. Revelations of the incumbent's extramarital affair and Carney's 30 labor union endorsements gave Carney a 53% to 47% win.
I think Carney may support ENDA. If I were talking to him, I would definitely make the point that the AFL-CIO and other unions support an inclusive ENDA.
Contact info: Christopher P. Carney (D-10) 202-225-3731 570-585-9988 202-225-9594 http://carney.house.gov/contact.shtml
Paul E. Kanjorski
Rep. Kanjorski represents the 11th Congressional district, immediately south of Rep. Carney's district.
Kanjorski did not indicate support for adding sexual orientation to the federal employment law in his 2006 Project Votesmart Political Courage test, but he did vote for the sexual orientation only ENDA in 2007, and for HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act.
According to Wikipedia, Kanjorski has won election since1984 by solid margins. In his last election in 2008, he was predicted to be in a very narrow race, said to be trailing by 5 points, but he nonetheless won 52 to 48. His particular strength is in Lackawanna County, which contains Scranton, a city that has had sexual orientation and gender identity protections in place since 2005.
When recently contacted, his office stated that he had not reached a decision on HR 3017, the current ENDA bill.
I think Kanjorski may support ENDA.
Contact info: Paul E. Kanjorski (D-11) 202-225-6511 570-496-1011 202-225-0764 http://kanjorski.house.govuse.gov/
John Murtha
Representative Murtha represents the 12th Congressional District, in the southeastern corner of the state. According to Wikipedia, the district was drawn specifically for Murtha, including many heavily Democratic regions, while leaving more right-leaning Pittsburgh suburban regions to the 4th or 18th district, and rural conservative regions to the 3rd or 9th district.
Also according to Wikipedia, Murtha is strongly pro-labor. Murtha did not indicate support for adding sexual orientation to the federal employment law in his 2006 Project Votesmart Political Courage test, but he did vote for the sexual orientation only ENDA in 2007. He did not vote on HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act. However, he did vote yes on the same hate crimes language (HR1592) in 2007.
I think Rep. Murtha could support ENDA, and if I were talking to him, I would point out the AFL-CIO endorsement of inclusive ENDA
Contact info: John Murtha (D-12) 202-225-2065 724-349-3195 202-225-5709 https://forms.house.gov/murtha/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
Charlie Dent
Rep. Dent, a Republican, represents the 15th Congressional district, which is immediately south of Rep. Kanjorski's district. Wikipedia describes the district as having a slightly Democratic tilt. It includes Allentown, which has prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity since 2002, Easton, which has had the same since 2006, and Northhampton County, which has a policy against job discrimination based on sexual orientation in public employment. Rep. Dent was one of only 18 Republicans to cross party lines to vote for HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act. He also voted in favor of the sexual orientation only ENDA in 2007.
I think Rep. Dent may support ENDA. I would point out all the cities in his district with ENDA-like protections and suggest that a majority of his constituents support it.
Contact info: Charlie Dent (R-15) 202-225-6411 215-541-4106 202-226-0778 http:/ http://dent.house.gov/contact.aspx
Tim Holden
Rep. Holden represents the 17th Congressional district in the central part of the state, which includes Harrisburg, the state capital.
Holden did indicate support for adding sexual orientation to the federal employment law in his 2006 Project Votesmart Political Courage test. He voted in favor of the sexual orientation only ENDA, and for HR 1913, the Hate Crimes Act. However, when recently contacted, his office stated that he had "no position" on HR 3017, the current ENDA bill.
I think that Holden could support ENDA. I would point out to him that Harrisburg has had sexual orientation and gender identity protections since 1984.
Contact info: Tim Holden (D-17) 202-225-5546 610-921-3502 202-226-0996 http://holden.house.gov/contactform_zipcheck.shtml
If you want to sign up to meet with your Pennsylvania Reps in August in your local district, click here
crossposted from bilerico,com
This is incredible news, as Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code has been repealed in the world's second most populous country. Under the code, one could receive 10 years in prison for "sex against the order of nature." (Reuters):he Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled gay sex was not a crime, a verdict that will bolster demands by gay and health groups that the government scrap a British colonial law which bans homosexual sex.You can read the ruling here. Rex Wockner digs into the details of what this means. A snippet:In a country where public hugging and kissing even among heterosexuals invites lewd remarks and sometimes beatings, gay sex has been a taboo, leaving the government unsure how conservative Indians would react if the law was repealed.
The court's ruling that homosexual sex among consenting adults is not a crime is expected to boost an increasingly vocal pro-gay lobby in India that says the British-era law was a violation of human rights.
1. What does Section 377 say? Glad you asked: "377. Unnatural Offences - Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section."Click over to read the rest.2. What did this Delhi High Court ruling do? It "read down" Section 377 -- at minimum, within the National Capital Territory of India -- so that Section 377 no longer applies to the activities of consenting adults.
3. What about the rest of India? It certainly carries weight there but is, at the moment, legally binding only in the National Capital Territory. What could happen next is that (A) the national government could appeal the ruling to India's Supreme Court, (B) the national government could accept the ruling and not appeal it, (C) the national government could accept the ruling and use it as ammo to introduce a bill in Parliament to duplicate the ruling in national law, and/or (D) anti-gay parties to the lawsuit could appeal to the Supreme Court. Regardless, gay sex is now legal in India's National Capital Territory and, as the Queer Media Collective put it: "This is the first time a court as senior as this, with such respected judges, has given a decision on homosexuality. Because of that it sends a powerful signal to the legal establishment across the country. We are confident that judges, lawyers and police officers across the country will understand and follow the Delhi High Court's lead."
4. Were there any tasty bits in the ruling? Is the pope Catholic? The ruling is delicious. Here are my favorite parts:
The criminalisation of homosexuality condemns in perpetuity a sizable section of society and forces them to live their lives in the shadow of harassment, exploitation, humiliation, cruel and degrading treatment at the hands of the law enforcement machinery. The Government of India estimates the MSM [men who have sex with men] number at around 25 lacs. The number of lesbians and transgenders is said to be several lacs as well. This vast majority (borrowing the language of the South African Constitutional Court) is denied "moral full citizenship". Section 377 IPC grossly violates their right to privacy and liberty embodied in Article 21 insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private. These fundamental rights had their roots deep in the struggle for independence and, as pointed out by Granville Austin in "The Indian Constitution - Cornerstone of A Nation", "they were included in the Constitution in the hope and expectation that one day the tree of true liberty would bloom in India".
Suddenly I'm Miss Farrah Fawcett on TV...
Until I wake up, and I turn back into myself.--Hedwig, from Hedwig And The Angry Inch's Wig in a Box
Somewhere between communicating effectively -- so that people will listen to my peers and me about trans civil rights issues -- and communicating only anger and hate, I feel lost. I don't want to give into "the tone argument" -- the argument that oppressors get to define what words the oppressed get to use, and get to say "I'd pay attention to you if your tone was better" -- but somewhere between civility and "the tone argument" there must be a balance...there must be a middle ground.
As we've called for civility between blenders here at Pam's House Blend -- well, today I asked my kat Bon-Bon about where that balance and middle ground is. As usual, she silently turned from looking out her perch at the front window -- the window that that looks out on the street -- and silently stared back at me.
[Below the fold -- trans-feminist terminology that's currently spoiled at The Blend, feeling like I'm fruitlessly railing against incivility atThe Blend, and discussion of how I have "an angry inch."]
Excerpt (from below the fold): Frankly, my transgender peers, this is where I began seeing the terms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam's House Blend threads. When, in my opinion, these terms should be used to teach -- as Julia Serrano and others use the term -- it was used to express anger and hate.
...In my opinion, this blender began this recent Pam's House Blend a discussion of cis- terminology with a can of gasoline and a match, and then has responded with anger as I tried to put out the fires.
The balance issue began with me over the terms cissexual and cisgender. I've always liked the words cissexual (for not transsexual; for non-transsexual) and cisgender (for not transgender; for non-transgender). I liked that these terms took the negative prefixes away from my transgender and transsexual identities when describing people who aren't trans.
The term cisgender was, as far as the research I can find, was first used by a trans man named Carl Buijs (in the mid-nineties), and cisgender and cissexual were then popularized by Julia Serrano in her book Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. From a feminist and privilege perspective, these two cis- terms have been used in helping to define for non-transgender and non-transsexual people the kinds of oppression trans people experience. And even though the cis- terms were popularized in a feminist work, the concepts of cissexualism and cisgenderism apply as equally to trans men, trans women, genderqueers, and other types of trans people.
I believe, in reading Serrano's book and her essays, that she meant the terms in a neutral way to describe a certain kind of privilege -- in the same vein of the concepts of white privilege, male privilege and straight privilege. These privileges exist in more than just theory, but those who are experiencing thcing these privileges are often unaware of their privileges, and sometimes folk (rightfully) take offense when these terms and privileges are pointed out to them.
Frankly, I didn't used to understand the concept of white privilege because I never experienced straight privilege. That is, until about my mid-forties, when I started "passing" as a white female. Even as a morbidly obese woman, my feminine movements, speech, and style of dress no longer identified me as being someone the the other f-word described.
When first confronted with my then newly experienced white privilege as a white woman, and was told I was communicating with others from a place of white privilege, I took offense. The very idea that I had it any better than any other human being sounded ludicrous to me, because my experience of being sexually harassed in the military told me I never had any privilege of any sort to operate from.
In time, though, it slowly dawned on me that I now did have white privilege, and I noticed it because I also gained that mainstream straight privilege -- my feminine movements, speech, and style of dress now were considered "normal" behavior for a woman, when those same behaviors identified me as gay when I presented as a white male.
And then, when I lost 125 pounds after my gastric bypass -- well, then I really noticed what being perceived as a white, attractive woman (for my age, anyway) in American society. Realizing that part of my "strength" at being a publicly transgender comes from how I can "pass" as female in society, and am out of the closet by choice instead of my appearance giving me away as trans...my white, female, privilege shocked me to my core. But being aware of it as I am now, I try to use it to better other trans people's lot in life -- especially for transyouth.
Let's be honest -- no one likes to be confronted with the privileges they experience, especially when one has one or more privileges to operate from (such as being white and male), but at the same time operate from a position of not having privilege (such as being gay). I had white privilege even when I didn't have straight privilege, but I didn't know I had any privilege in society whatsoever.
Uh, hey, some of us were there when Aravosis publicly made the case that we [transgender people] don't belong in his cisgender gay-rights movement.It's not ancient history for us. It's the way Aravosis treats trans people. We've borne the scars; we're the ones who had our comments deleted or edited, earned our bans from his site.
And you wonder why we hate the guy? ...
That's the exact comment in the Aravosis thread that first injected the term cisgender into our recent discussions. And, That's not my emphasis in that comment above, it's the blender's emphasis.
In that comment, the term cisgender wasn't used to explain privilege to people who didn't understand it, but instead used to angrily -- accusatorily -- pointing a finger at John Aravosis for being a gay white male who doesn't care about the civil rights of transgender people. It was that weaponized use of that cis- term that began the current Pam's House Blend debate over cisgender and cissexual terminology here at The Blend. When I've mentioned repeatedly that the two cis- terms have been weaponized at The Blend, this is the is starting point as to where I feel the term was weaponized against gay white men.
Frankly, my transgender peers, this is where I began seeing the terms cierms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam's House Blend threads. When, in my opinion, these terms should be used to teach -- as Julia Serrano and others use the term -- I saw the term cisgender used to express anger and hate.
The writer of that comment has now written her own blog about how I've shut down discussion of the cis- terms here at The Blend. She's also commenting that I shut down discussion -- many comments to that effect in her twitter feed. In my opinion, this blender began this recent Pam's House Blend a discussion of cis- terminology with a can of gasoline and a match, and then has responded with anger as I tried to put out the fires.
Next weaponized cisgender comment in that thread:
Here is main point for Aravosis and all other cisgendered, transbigoted privileged assholesThe fight for GLB rights and the fight for Transgender rights are the same fight, because, at the most basic, they are rooted in the fight for people other than cisgendered, straight (white, wealthy) men to have a sexuality and a gender identity and not be punished or shamed for it.
Not to mention it's just the right goddam thing to do.
Go forth and converse.
To my transgender peers, let me say this: use the terms cisgender and cissexual. However, I recommend using the terms not as pointed weapons, but as the teaching tools about privilege that these terms are meant to be. 
As for me now though, I've personally lost the ability to use cisgender and cissexual as educational words for quite awhile. What originally started out as moderation and civility issue at The Blend over the weaponizing of the terms cissexual and cisgender by a small minority of trans people turned into the viral perception that we're shutting down discussion of cis- terminology at The Blend.
That was the effect of what I did to try and keep civility at The Blend, but it was never the reason for why I did in shutting down the discussion of threads where those terms were being discussed.
Basically, it doesn't take more than one or two people to broadly sour a discussion in our threads. I perceive that some of my trans peers weaponized the cis terms to paint gay white men (GWM) with a broad brush -- they poisoned the well for me, and poisoned the reasonable, neutral use of those terms in our blog for quite awhile, I feel. So trans people, keep the two cis- terms, but know that a few of our trans peers have poisoned their use as neutral terms at The Blend, and you're likely going to get no where for awhile with many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people here at The Blend if you use those terms because the words have taken on added meaning as pointed weapons. Again, it only takes one or two voices to poison the well in a discussion, and that's happened here.
And, let's not let some GWM blenders off the hook. They responded to an article I wrote about a John Aravosis with a "tone argument" in response to trans folk. I don't think that "the tone argument" is a GWM-as-a-group problem, just as I don't think the weaponizing of cissexual and cisgender are a transgender community problem -- again, it doesn't take more than one or two people to sour a discussion in our threads.
But folks, this is why broad-brush attacks on communities and subcommunities are so damaging -- this is why personal attacks and cross-identity community attacks are so damaging within the coalition of subcommunities of the broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.
The frustrating thing is I went on a trip to meet Allyson Robinson for lunch on that last Friday of Pride Month -- after posting my Aravosis diary -- and came back to The Blend to see what I perceived was the morphing of those neutral cis- words into weapons, and "the tone argument" being used with what I perceived without reasonable challenge. I used a second post, entitled Enough Already to try and make the point that we're supposed to be friends around the coffee table here at Pam's House Blend, but then the thread was hijacked to again bring up how a blenderbelieved the terms cisgender and cissexual are neutral.
So, let me back up here, for a moment, and tell you about behind the scenes stuff that I usually wouldn't share with y'all. The individual who kept that cissexual and cisgender discussion in the Enough Already thread has been sent a warning e-letter three days earlier for a personal attack on another within The Blend's thread, where the commenter I perceived as trying to hijack my Enough Already thread said this:
I'm sill cuter than you are, and I'm putting the lie to everything you just said, simply by existing.
Care to explain that one?
War is what they call it. I call it living. Please read that comment above in light of the civility link we have had at the top of our blog for over a week:
And from a recent post about calming our baser instincts at The Blend, this comment on hijacking threads:
Off-topic discussions in our threads sometimes don't happen in a vacuum -- and it didn't happen in a vacuum here. DiscussDiscussing the terms cissexual and cisgender in a thread on civility -- the Enough Already diary's thread -- was a big red flag for me. I saw the terms that a small number of trans people weaponized in the previous Aravosis thread being brought over for discussion to the new thread -- the new thread on civility -- by someone I just warned about a TOS violation related to civility not three days earlier.
Frankly, that's when I lost it. I wasn't in a calm place to start with, and I saw a thread on civility being hijacked in a way that just infuriated me -- In my mind, I saw the way that the discussion was about to turn.
Well, I slammed that blender publicly for discussing those cis- terms in the Enough Already thread -- I turned a moderation issue about trying to keep discussions civil among friends into a cis- terminology issue. Yes, the cis- terms were at the moderation issue's core, but it was less about the cis- terms directly than it was -- well, what I perceived as hijacking a thread about civility into one where recently contentious subject matter (and that subject matter included cis- terminology) was discussed. I should have made the public issue about hijacking a thread to discuss a recently contentious use of terminology rather than making it about terminology that had recently been used contentiously. I take full responsibility for the wrong way I shut down discussion in that thread; I also own that I still feel that the Enough Already civility thread was absolutely the wrong thread to have another cis- terminology discussion.
Of course, a flame war wouldn't be complete without more flaming. I banned the blender in question after she left a public message on my Facebook page regarding my comments in the Aravosis thread. Most of y'all didn't see that comment on my Facebook page because most of you never look at my Facebook page. It felt pretty searing though; I definitely feel that she just kept upping the ante.
And here, let me interject a reminder of what we aim to be at Pam's House Blend. We aim to be a virtual coffee house were friends gather to discuss issues, just like friends in a brick and mortar coffee house. If one of your brick an mortar coffee house friends went and sh*t on the front doorstep of one of the baristas at your brick and mortar coffee house in anger, that coffee house friend would likely not be welcome back at that brick and mortar coffee house. If you're looking for the analogy as to why the blender who appeared to be reasonably defending the use of the terms cisgender and cissexual at The Blend was banned from your virtual coffee shop -- well, there was much more to the story than what most of you saw occurring. What I perceived as the virtual sh*tting on my virtual front porch was just last straw that broke this camel's back.
So now, to retain civility to my lesbian, gay, and bisexual peers, I've lost my ability to use these two cis- terms as these were meant to be used to create awareness about privilege that visibly trans people don't have. The odd thing is that I lost my ability to use these words during the 40th anniversary weekend of the Stonewall Uprising, where I believed I saw the trans contribution to the Stonewall Uprising being neglected or overlooked.
Now now, Brandi
This Blog is not a haven for trolls, threats, or people wishing to spam or harass...We have the right to edit, remove or deny access to content that is determined to be, in our sole discretion, unacceptable. Please respect the rights of others to be heard and to be respected. We welcome all viewpoints, but we do not welcome personal attacks on our users, in any form. The moderators of The Blog retain the right to ban any user from posting at The Blog for behavior deemed inappropriate.
We baristas and Pam have been noticing a coarsening within the discussion threads of late. Frankly, when we see within discussion threads Ann Coulter again start being referred to as a tranny and as Mann Coulter, when we see in different threads where the acknowledged gender identities of trans people aren't respected, when in still another thread we see the term bitch used in a derogatory fashion, and when we see people hijack threads for flame wars, it's time again to remind people about what the character of this blog is supposed to be.
Instead of being able to comment on that perceived erasure; instead of being able to comment on the lunch I had with Allyson Robinson this past Friday; I was busy on the Stonewall Uprising 40th anniversary weekend reading through hundreds comments and sending warning letters to blenders for incivility, inappropriate language (which included one
But back to the cis- terms, does my anger and dropping from my vocabulary the two cis terms mean others can't use the terms in the neutral way to explain trans oppression as these were intended to be used? I hope not -- these should be good terms to describe privilege into the future.
But at least in the short term, I know I can't effectively use the terms here at The Blend, and I'd strongly recommend trans people stay away from those terms here at The Blend for awhile. Frankly, the cis- words are just too emotionally charged here at The Blend right now for neutral use of the terms here in our diaries, or here in our threads. I take a portion, but not all, of the responsibility for how those terms have become emotionally charged here at Pam's House Blend.
However, I'm rightfully accused of shutting down the use of those terms is in a thread that I thought was aptly titled Enough Already, and in a follow on thread entitled Jumping Into The Deep End Of The Language Pool. I don't believe I was wrong to shut down the discussion of those terms in that thread, but I was wrong in how I did it.
Basically, I felt one of our blenders was hijacking a thread on civility to again contentiously discuss the use of those two cis- terms. I wanted to shut down that discussion in that thread as a moderation issue, and ended up overreaching in my response. I'm not sorry at all about shutting down that discussion in that thread, but I'm incredibly sorry for the way I did it.
My approach to how I moderated that thread mirrored "the tone argument." And of course, "the tone argument" of shutting down the discussion on that thread was wrongheaded. I took a moderation issue and mishandled it -- I made it seem like a terminology issue.
So, I asked my kat Bon-Bon last night and this morning "How do I fix this?" Again she silently stared at me from her window perch.
In the past months, I've seen many of our threads at Pam's House Blend involving trans people or issues have seemed to turn into uncivil discussions -- discussions on trans people and issues devolving into personal attacks and community/subcommunity attacks. And this week on top of that, we're been bombed with comments by trans people creating new profiles -- using unrelated threads to say that we at Pam's House Blend have shut down trans voices. I deserve those bombs, but Pam and my fellow baristas don't.
I'm the one who made that moderation mistake; it wasn't Pam's fault, it was completely mine.
And, the sad thing I see in all this is that no one with any viewpoint on trans issues is really being heard because on trans issues because no one is really listening to anything anyone else says. All -- including me -- have just seemed to give in to burning anger, and seem now to be talking past each other.
I asked Bon-Bon what to do about all of this mess too, and again she just silently stared back at me from her window perch.
Y'know, Bon-Bon looked at me as she often does...in that where she appears to be hanging onto every word I say. But as we all know, she's a kat, and she really doesn't understand a single word I say. There's a metaphor in there somewhere, I'm sure.
My peer baristas and I hand I have found that I haven't been able to effectively moderate the discussion at The Blend -- to navigate that narrow path between being civil and giving in to "the tone argument" -- that we strive for here at the Pam's House Blend virtual coffee house. Pam and I have asked people on both sides to calm down, and it seems that many of you blenders won't moderate yourselves. And at least on the discussion of the cis- terms, my approach to dealing with the issue has been way too heavy handed.
I feel that on this side of the myriad of gender and community divides, I gave into my "angry inch."
For those of you who've never seen the movie (or play) Hedwig And The Angry Inch, it's a story about a gay man on the "wrong" side of the Berlin Wall living with extreme anger -- he gave up his penis and became a woman in a botched sex change operation specifically to flee oppression, only to see the Berlin Wall fall less than a year later.
For me, I'm not a gay man, and I'm not angry for the same reasons Hedwig was angry. But that said, Hedwig faced the same frustrations of not fitting well into sexually dichotomous world, and facing the same hate of the other f-word. And too, Hedwig was being oppressed for somehow being visibly transgender, but always living openly as transgender even when her appearance wasn't giving her away as trans.
What little sexuality and "length" I ever had...well, I lost whatever I had in taking Estrodial and Spironolactone. This week, my genitalia are not now much more than the metaphor of "the angry inch." But just as Hedwig looked and saw no benefit to the anger in the video above, I sometimes share the anger about a lot in life that leaves me discriminated against, hated, and oppressed. But, that anger doesn't get me respect or the equality that I want when I yell, scream, and rail at those who don't want to extend respect or equality to me.
Because I'm open about being trans, by many I'm seen as a gay man; by many other as a "third gender" person; by still others as "Autumn" Sandeen, the fake woman; and by still others as capricious, angry, transgender activist who rose to prominence in the "blood lust" of covering the Angie Zapata Hate Crime Murder trial, I don't fully get to define myself. I chose to define myself as a transgender, transsexual, real woman -- but I know I'm defined in other terms by others.
And this week, I'm defined by appearing to close all discussions at The Blend that involve the terms cisgender and cissexual because those terms are being discussed. I know I've shut down discussions because of moderation issues, but when Lisa Harney of Questioning Transphobia essentially believes I was shutting down discussions related to the terms cissexual and cisgender as a "tone argument" -- I know I flubbed things horribly. The myriad of phone calls, IM chats, and emails from a number of transgender activists that Pam and I have both fielded since my visible flubbing on what she and I agreed were incivility and moderation issues...well, I know my flubbing of moderation issues went viral.
Today, when I'm feeling all of my "angry inch" in perceiving those particular gay white men and gay white lesbians who have used the "tone argument" at The Blend, as well feeling that "angry inch" against those particular trans peers for screeching with anger, hijacking threads, and being uncivil to many of us who are trans and non-trans alians alike -- I find myself at a loss.
Bon-Bon, of course, has no answer for me but her blank stare. Twice today already she's nudged my elbow why I've sat writing this at the computer, demanding my attention-- demanding scratches on her crown. So many blenders and others have been demanding my attention of late, and I just don't have the energy to answer all the commentary and demands. There is no fixing this problem.
So, I've been slow to respond because I've taking a few days off to cool my anger, and to recharge. I've had a mani and a pedi; I'm going to take a long walk on a sandy beach; I'm going to go fishing in the woods that are just an hour away from my little apartment; and I'm going to spend some more quality time with Bon-Bon -- my ever quiet, but loving friend. I'm going to continue a very needed break.
Before my frustration and anger turns to hate, I want to again truly embrace what Martin Luther King Jr. stated:
I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up against our most bitter opponents and say: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you.... But be assured that we'll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.
Frankly, I'm not there this week.
I've shed some tears within my frustration and anger this past week -- and said some words publicly and privately that I find I deeply regret. I'm well aware that apologies aren't going to be enough for the damage I've personally inflicted; I'm well aware I lost my own sense of self and my own civility in the frustration of repeatedly and fruitlessly asking that blenders treat each other civilly.
All of these things are going to be a hard for me to bear.
So, while I'm gone and recharging, please remember to that civility matters...
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.
So true...it seems to have eaten me alive this past week.
.
***
(NOTE FROM AUTUMN: Wow. I went to the post at Questioning Transphobia, and as of this moment, there are 287 comments on the thread. Having stepped away from Pam's House Blend for two days in an attempt to recharge, I discovered that 1.) one of our blenders posted a comment comparig trans people to Nazis, and 2.) I'm a pretty hated trans person by other trans people at the moment.
In the small picture, to the now former blender who made the Nazi comparison -- Wow. Really? Wow. Exactly how much power do you thing trans trans people have in America? Do you think trans people have the power -- or the desire -- to kill millions of people? If you do -- Wow. In any case, that was such an unnecessary and over-the-top comment.
And in the bigger picture, take a read over at Questioning Transphobia, and you can see for yourself how hated and tainted a trans person I've become within my community. It's been quite a humiliating to be so chastized -- so raked over the coals, for sure. Especially true for the comment where I was compared to a house negro -- which would of course make Pam my "massah."
It's been so difficult for me to "get" that this all started from me criticizing a gay man for not first apologizing to trans people for saying that T people should not be part of his gay community -- when he used trans people to make a point about LGBT issues. I can see the process of how I became a pariah within the last five days within the trans community, but the bitterness and anger I've seen is something I'm having a hard time grappling with.
To those peers that might want to come to my defense -- please don't. My angry peers need to have their voices heard, and they need to be unfilted, and unchallenged.
Honestly, I don't know whether anyone here at this blog will want me to respond to the comments for this diary or not. Frankly, I was planning to go fishing today because I need some time off, but I think I need to stay home instead and pay attention to what my peers say here today. My taking the past two days off from the blog and try to recharge has apparently turned out to be a particularly bad plan, considering what has transpired within the aforementioned Questioning Transphobia thread, as well as here in our Enough Already thread.
If you want me to respond to your particular comment in this diary's thread, then please let me know within the thread -- I'll get to as many of the comments requesting reply as I can, and answer as honestly as I can. If you don't ask for a response, I'll assume you don't want a response.
Frankly, I fully expect to be pummelled.)
NOTE FROM PAM: It's not hard to see how far beyond the pale all of this has gone in these specific trans-related threads, but quite a few diary threads in general. Obviously if we've called for a civility day, there's a problem. Some of the responsibility of this has to be bourne by the readers, after all, that's ultimately why we are here now.
To remind readers, and inform newbies:
1) I don't read every thread.
2) I don't monitor comments very often at this point; I have a more-than-full-time offline job, and an actual life, plus I have to write the content you read.
3) Reader diaries that are promoted or written by baristas do not necessarily reflect my views; sometimes they are counter to my view and presented for open discussion and debate.
I should note that no one monitors Daily Kos or Pandagon at the level it has been done on the Blend; on Pandagon it's usually just for blatant right-wing troll removal and even then the bar is high. I don't even think it exists on DKos. The original goal was to make the Blend a safe space, not a 100% PC zone, but at this point it's a balance between being able to write content or sitting there trying to stop people who cannot tell the difference between honest debate and screaming epithets at one another at a personal level. We have over 8,300 registered users; just a couple of months aonths ago we had 5,000.
Some of you may use this thread to respond to Autumn; I would like to hear from people who want to problem-solve the issue of moderation, since that is the overarching issue. We've obviously reached a tipping point in being able to moderate effectively (or fairly to some users).
So, here are some questions that you, the readers and the commenters, need to answer for me about this community space, and let's start with basics:
* Do you want comments? I personally like the interaction they provide, but it's an option to turn them off.I'd prefer to talk it through and hear your suggestions than make a unilateral decisions without any input, but my-way-or-the-highway decision making is obviously an option. Thank you in advance for those who want to roll up your sleeves and work on this problem.* If you want them on; do you want the Blend moderated or not? We can certainly let it be open like many blogs, completely free of editorial intervention.
* What about ratings? Should the feature remain or be turned off?
* Does the community want to fund baristas to sit in front of a computer 24/7 to be a hall monitor/bouncer? On a community blog, that would mean also monitoring the comments of the non-front-page blogs as well. This is madness; I can't imagine anyone voting for this option.
Assuming that one is off the table, then...
* If you want the Blend moderated, what is a realistic expectation of moderation?
* Do the ground rules for "offensive language" change -- get relaxed, since there's so much content?
* What is a reasonable turnaround time for a barista to address an offensive comment?
* How should an offensive comment reported? Via comment or email to the tips line? I personally think doing so in the comments is obviously proving ineffective; on the other hand my inbox is already full of emails I can't get to right away.
* How many warnings does one receive before receiving a suspension or trapdoor?
* How many reports on one comment constitute auto trapdoor/suspension?
* Are banned users ever allowed to return?
Stonewall Anniversary Poem
by Governor Barbara Roberts
From Stonewall to Salem, Across this whole nation We've marched and we've lobbied, Forty years in duration. For fairness, equality For dignity and rights For safety, and partners To turn on the lights. To come out of the darkness, Emerge from the closet, To rise above hatred And the bigots who cause it. The path has been long With hurdles and roadblocks But the future looks bright With adoptions and wedlocks. So on this eve of Stonewall We celebrate gains We stand shoulder to shoulder For the work that remains. We thank all who have given, Taken risks, led the way Lesbian, Trans, Bi, Straight and Gay. So - lift up your glasses And your hearts - one and all As we toast our martyrs and heroes And the brave souls of Stonewall.
No comments:
Post a Comment