Obama Outlines Plan for LGBT issues

[Invictus ChiKen]

I wasn't trying to justify it, geez. I was explaining WHY so many black people voted for Prop 8 -- the "No On 8" assumed that the black vote was guaranteed because of Obama, and completely ignored African-Americans in its counter-advertising campaign.

I never asked about who voted for what. I pointed out that a faction on "No on 8" types are hurling racial insults and alienating a lot of people even there own supporters, just like you on this forum are alienating many that would stand beside you over a Gods damned acronym.

[Kanastrous]

What about NYAH - Not Your Average Heterosexual?

It dispenses with categorizing all of the various sorts of orientations and conditions, in favor of identifying interested parties in a way more in line with what looks like the real dynamic at work: some of us are strictly stereotypical wife+kids hetero, and then there's everyone else - because it sure looks like there's a "we're normal and anything not just like us isn't" mentality, which is really what ought to be combated.

Plus one could drive the Pro-8 types up the walls at counter protests with the chant - NYAH, NYAH, NYAH!

[CaptainChewbacca]

What about NYAH - Not Your Average Heterosexual?

It dispenses with categorizing all of the various sorts of orientations and conditions, in favor of identifying interested parties in a way more in line with what looks like the real dynamic at work: some of us are strictly stereotypical wife+kids hetero, and then there's everyone else - because it sure looks like there's a "we're normal and anything not just like us isn't" mentality, which is really what ought to be combated.

Plus one could drive the Pro-8 types up the walls at counter protests with the chant - NYAH, NYAH, NYAH!

I have no problem with this plan, and would like to purchase a NYAH t-shirt as soon as possible.

[Invictus ChiKen]

What about NYAH - Not Your Average Heterosexual?

It dispenses with categorizing all of the various sorts of orientations and conditions, in favor of identifying interested parties in a way more in line with what looks like the real dynamic at work: some of us are strictly stereotypical wife+kids hetero, and then there's everyone else - because it sure looks like there's a "we're normal and anything not just like us isn't" mentality, which is really what ought to be combated.

Plus one could drive the Pro-8 types up the walls at counter protests with the chant - NYAH, NYAH, NYAH!

Hot damn I am all for that! It can also be used to include those that support gay rights!

With you permission I will make frequent use of N.Y.A.H. and even make an N.Y.A.H. signature.

[JCady]

What about NYAH - Not Your Average Heterosexual?

It dispenses with categorizing all of the various sorts of orientations and conditions, in favor of identifying interested parties in a way more in line with what looks like the real dynamic at work: some of us are strictly stereotypical wife+kids hetero, and then there's everyone else - because it sure looks like there's a "we're normal and anything not just like us isn't" mentality, which is really what ought to be combated.

As a general slogan, that's an awesome idea. As a categorical imperative. . . not so much, because different subgroups suffer different kinds of discrimination and trying to insist that they don't is a quick ticket towards letting the "majority of the minority" decide which issues are important in a way that screws over everyone else.

[Knife]

What about NYAH - Not Your Average Heterosexual?

It dispenses with categorizing all of the various sorts of orientations and conditions, in favor of identifying interested parties in a way more in line with what looks like the real dynamic at work: some of us are strictly stereotypical wife+kids hetero, and then there's everyone else - because it sure looks like there's a "we're normal and anything not just like us isn't" mentality, which is really what ought to be combated.

As a general slogan, that's an awesome idea. As a categorical imperative. . . not so much, because different subgroups suffer different kinds of discrimination and trying to insist that they don't is a quick ticket towards letting the "majority of the minority" decide which issues are important in a way that screws over everyone else.

Then 'equal rights' should do just fine.

[Dahak]

All this bickering about an acronym and proper usage...it has a somewhat Monty-Pythonesque flair to it.
Why people prefer to use "gay" as a term for most sub-groups is probably that it is a heck easier to use than LGBT (or whatever letter zoo is appropriate) in most situations...

[Uraniun235]

Why not just "non-heterosexual"? That's basically what the letter menagerie comes down to, isn't it?

[JCady]

What about NYAH - Not Your Average Heterosexual?

It dispenses with categorizing all of the various sorts of orientations and conditions, in favor of identifying interested parties in a way more in line with what looks like the real dynamic at work: some of us are strictly stereotypical wife+kids hetero, and then there's everyone else - because it sure looks like there's a "we're normal and anything not just like us isn't" mentality, which is really what ought to be combated.

As a general slogan, that's an awesome idea. As a categorical imperative. . . not so much, because different subgroups suffer different kinds of discrimination and trying to insist that they don't is a quick ticket towards letting the "majority of the minority" decide which issues are important in a way that screws over everyone else.

Then 'equal rights' should do just fine.

But that's exactly what the problem with the "gay rights first" types is -- it's not that they're against equal rights for trans people, they are basically just being greedy and saying that trans people "get in the way" of equal rights for gays and should be pushed back into the closet until gay rights are fully achieved. That's what Barney Frank means when he insists that trans rights needs to be put back on the shelf for the "next generation" to deal with.

[Lagmonster]

But that's exactly what the problem with the "gay rights first" types is -- it's not that they're against equal rights for trans people, they are basically just being greedy and saying that trans people "get in the way" of equal rights for gays and should be pushed back into the closet until gay rights are fully achieved. That's what Barney Frank means when he insists that trans rights needs to be put back on the shelf for the "next generation" to deal with.

For the listeners in the crowd, perhaps you could detail which civil rights gay people don't need to fight for but which transgendered people do.

[CaptainChewbacca]

But that's exactly what the problem with the "gay rights first" types is -- it's not that they're against equal rights for trans people, they are basically just being greedy and saying that trans people "get in the way" of equal rights for gays and should be pushed back into the closet until gay rights are fully achieved. That's what Barney Frank means when he insists that trans rights needs to be put back on the shelf for the "next generation" to deal with.

For the listeners in the crowd, perhaps you could detail which civil rights gay people don't need to fight for but which transgendered people do.

Its not rights so much as respect treatment. To a large segment of society, a transgender person affects the sensibilities in ways very different than a gay or lesbian person does.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But that's exactly what the problem with the "gay rights first" types is -- it's not that they're against equal rights for trans people, they are basically just being greedy and saying that trans people "get in the way" of equal rights for gays and should be pushed back into the closet until gay rights are fully achieved. That's what Barney Frank means when he insists that trans rights needs to be put back on the shelf for the "next generation" to deal with.

For the listeners in the crowd, perhaps you could detail which civil rights gay people don't need to fight for but which transgendered people do.

It varies from state to state, but hate crime laws and antidiscrimination laws often protect gay people but not the transgendered. Also, there are a lot of things like the use of public bathrooms and dressing roooms that are problems for the transgendered as well. Hell, some states will not re-assign legally recognized sex at all (If you were unlucky enough to be born in texas...)

Here is the way I see this, and everyone is missing the elephant in the room.

Our movement has X amount of money to spend in order to maximize the civil rights of Y number of people. This leads to a utilitarian calculation, where we have to pick and choose where, when and who we will support with that amount of money. If in local and state jurisdictions we can get rights for the transgendered without a disproportionate (cost per person) amount of money that detracts from larger efforts elsewhere, we do it. If there is not chance, why waste the money?

To use an example

There are 120 gay people living in Hickville, and 12 transexuals. I can get antidiscrimination legislation for one group, or the other for the same price. I cannot get both and that price is a considerable portion of my political capital and monetary budget. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, who should I choose? I suppose I can hold off and wait 10 years to get both, but in the mean time, people are suffering and maybe in ten years I will have enough money and political capital to cover the other one.

Who the hell do I choose?

[Alyrium Denryle]

As an aside:

What barney frank and the HRC did was disgusting, because it doesnt actually cost anything to propose an inclusive ENDA. We have been introducing it in pretty much every legislative session for decades with little cost to ourselves. He did that because congress was spineless and ineffectual against the republicans even with a majority and he wanted to give the administration a token finger-wag to boost senate approval ratings.

[Kanastrous]

All this bickering about an acronym and proper usage...it has a somewhat Monty-Pythonesque flair to it.

I'll admit that for a couple of pages now I can't stop thinking about the South Park episode where in the distant future atheism has become universal - and various atheist groups are merrily slaughtering one another in disputes over what the call themselves...

[JCady]

But that's exactly what the problem with the "gay rights first" types is -- it's not that they're against equal rights for trans people, they are basically just being greedy and saying that trans people "get in the way" of equal rights for gays and should be pushed back into the closet until gay rights are fully achieved. That's what Barney Frank means when he insists that trans rights needs to be put back on the shelf for the "next generation" to deal with.

For the listeners in the crowd, perhaps you could detail which civil rights gay people don't need to fight for but which transgendered people do.

A few examples of issues specific to transgender individuals are access to bathrooms (in some states, transgender persons are not allowed to use men's OR women's bathrooms) and the right to comply with dress codes for their own gender.

In addition, the "gay rights first" types often argue for the exclusion of trans people from civil rights laws which would naturally benefit both gays and trans people because it's "harder to gain public support when you include transgender people". An example of this would be ENDA, which would have protected both gays and trans people from employment discrimination -- as I mentioned earlier, Barney Frank spearheaded a successful attempt to replace ENDA with a watered down version that protected gays only. It's the exact same right in this case; it's just the gays want to dump trans people in order to go faster.

[JCady]

There are 120 gay people living in Hickville, and 12 transexuals. I can get antidiscrimination legislation for one group, or the other for the same price. I cannot get both and that price is a considerable portion of my political capital and monetary budget. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, who should I choose? I suppose I can hold off and wait 10 years to get both, but in the mean time, people are suffering and maybe in ten years I will have enough money and political capital to cover the other one.

I would say that your scenario is a false dilemma, and that the real-life situation is more like this:

There are 120 gay people and 12 transexual people in Hicksville, and the local LGBT group has enough budget to lobby for and probably secure the passage of an all-inclusive law which protects both gay and trans people. However, the gay people insist that the group should lobby for a gay rights bill instead of the all-inclusive bill because it may be more likely to succeed. They argue that this undefined and unproven increase in probability means that the trans people are "just getting in the way", and that in fact the lobby should put trans rights on hold altogether and focus ALL of its resources on passing not only this gay rights law but also more gay rights laws in the future.

Then some of the people who are arguing for the "gay rights first" approach cleverly rewrite the history of the LGBT group in order to erase the fact that it was founded by both gays and transexuals. This allows them to dishonestly argue that the group "really" always a gay rights group in the first place and they're sick of trans people "hitching a ride" on it, and the group should OBVIOUSLY just dump the freeloaders and support the gay rights legislation.

[JCady]

As an aside:

What barney frank and the HRC did was disgusting, because it doesnt actually cost anything to propose an inclusive ENDA. We have been introducing it in pretty much every legislative session for decades with little cost to ourselves. He did that because congress was spineless and ineffectual against the republicans even with a majority and he wanted to give the administration a token finger-wag to boost senate approval ratings.

Frank's argument was that it would make the Democrats look bad if they didn't pass some sort of gay rights law, even if it had very little chance of passing the Senate and none whatsoever of beating a Presidential veto. Therefore, he had to dump trans rights; the Democrats "needed" to be able to slam dunk an easy gay rights law instead of having to fight for an inclusive ENDA.

The entire dialogue basically went like this:

Barney Frank: "The passage of ENDA is a VERY IMPORTANT symbol of the Democrats' commitment to equal rights for all!"

LGBT Lobby: "So why the hell are you cutting trans people out of it? We've all been pushing for trans-inclusive ENDA for decades!"

Barney Frank: "Look, I'm the politician, I know what's best! We Democrats did a whip count, and the votes just aren't there! You have to be realistic about this!"

LGBT Lobby: "There isn't any whip count on the record."

Barney Frank: "It was a special off-the-record whip count. Just between you and me, a lot of the freshman Democrats are worried that if they vote for trans-inclusive ENDA they'll lose the support of moderate swing voters when they come up for re-election in four years. It's not fair to spend so much political capital on a symbolic vote."

LGBT Lobby: "Almost everyone who is anti-trans rights is also anti-gay rights, so they'd lose the same number of swing voters either way. Besides, weren't you just saying that this is a VERY IMPORTANT vote?"

Barney Frank: "Shut up, shut up, shut up! You rabid ideological purists are the reason we can't ever get anything done!"

LGBT Lobby: "You do realize that sexual orientation protection without gender identity protection is effectively meaningless. All employers have to do is say that they're not firing you because you're gay, they're firing you because you're a sissy."

Barney Frank: "That's ridiculous! No court would possibly go with the letter of the law like that."

LGBT Lobby: "Oh really?"

Barney Frank: "Well, okay, they do it all the time, but I'm sure they won't do it with gay rights."

LGBT Lobby: "Yeah right. You know what? We're not playing your little game here. Real ENDA or nothing."

Barney Frank: "You IDIOTS! Can't you see that this is a NECESSARY COMPROMISE? This is why trans rights need to be on hold entirely! All they do is get in the damn way! "

[Junghalli]

Why not just "non-heterosexual"? That's basically what the letter menagerie comes down to, isn't it?

^ The man comes up with a winning idea. I like the elegant simplicity of it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

But back on topic, the good news is that ENDA will likely include transgendered individuals again when it gets passed into Congress for consideration next year.

The gay-only version of ENDA already passed the House, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate announced that they were going to fast-track a matching gay-only version and not even consider putting trans rights back in. That may change now that there's no threat of a Presidential veto and the Democrats have super-solid majorities in both the House and the Senate, but as far as I'm aware there's been no official statement that they're going to reconsider trans rights. The "gay rights only" crowd, of course, is continuing to argue that ENDA Lite should be rammed through Congress ASAP and that a separate trans rights law can be passed at a later time.

The problem with that is we've heard it before; that argument was used to pass gay-but-not-trans civil rights laws in several states, and not a single time was the promise to "come back for" trans rights ever actually honored. Instead, the gay rights advocates kept pushing for . . . more gay rights. That's why even as uber-liberal a state as Massachusetts still has no transgender rights laws at all, while gays enjoy full civil rights protection up to and including full marriage rights. The really scary part is they have EVERYTHING they ever wanted. . . and they're still they're still saying that advocating trans rights would "dilute their success", they want to go fight for marriage rights in other states instead of trans rights in their own state.

That is the historical background and perspective that trans people are coming from, okay? There are just way, way too many gay people who agree that of course transgender people should have equal rights as a matter of principle, but then turn around and argue that actual advocacy for trans rights is bad because it "gets in the way of" gay rights.

Look, I'm familiar with the historical background in regards to the transgendered community being screwed over in gay rights legislation. In fact, I didn't donate anything to HRC at the pride festival this year for exactly that reason. I know exactly where you're coming from and you're not helping yourself or your cause by jumping on me because you assume that I don't.

That said, here is the text from the Obama website:

Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

With a Democratic majority and an LGBT supportive administration, it is more likely that when ENDA gets considered again, it will include gender identity.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

As for fighting within the LGBT community, it exists. Biphobia, for example, is another problem. It's been said that bisexuals sometimes have to come out of two closets - one that they're not heterosexual and the other that they're not homosexual. You'd think gay people would be extremely understanding. But there are retards in any group of people unfortunately.

[Kanastrous]

As for fighting within the LGBT community, it exists. Biphobia, for example, is another problem. It's been said that bisexuals sometimes have to come out of two closets - one that they're not heterosexual and the other that they're not homosexual. You'd think gay people would be extremely understanding. But there are retards in any group of people unfortunately.

I can't even tell you how much shit I have had to listen to (being bi) from single-polarity types, on the matter.

I'd like to track down whoever came up with There's no such thing as bisexuals, just confused fags and give him a swift kick in the arse.

[JCady]

With a Democratic majority and an LGBT supportive administration, it is more likely that when ENDA gets considered again, it will include gender identity.

More likely, but hardly guaranteed. I predict that the "gay rights first" types will try to ram ENDA-without-trans through as is and then argue that that the most important issue is federal level same-sex marriage rights.

[Junghalli]

I'd like to track down whoever came up with There's no such thing as bisexuals, just confused fags and give him a swift kick in the arse.

I always find that meme hilarious because biologically bisexuality makes a hell of a lot more sense than exclusive homosexuality (since bisexuals are actually likely to have genetic offspring if left to their own devices).

[Kanastrous]

Bisexuality just makes more sense, period.

Not that I'm biased, or anything.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Agreed. I almost got my ass kicked by some of my former lesbian friends when the subject of bisexuality came up. I told them I felt that all humans are bisexual to some degree. (BTW At the time I had a girl friend and was not trying to get into there pants.)

The former lesbian friend part was due to there finding this view very homophobic.