HRC

[bcholmes]

I've run into a few posts recently about Susan Stanton, a transwoman who is somehow involved with the Human Rights Campaign (the precise relationship isn't clear to me). As most trans folk know, the Human Rights Campaign is unpopular with a lot of transfolk for supporting a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that excludes trans protections.

Some of the criticisms of Susan Stanton are based on her relatively new-comer status to the trans community. TransAdvocate says:

One of the most obvious reasons that she should not represent the transgender community is experience. This time last year, Susan was still Steve. Susan was still closeted. She transitioned from Steve to Susan in May of last year. The words "newbie" and "neophyte" ring loudly through my ears when the name Susan Stanton is spoken. A recent story in the St. Petersburg Times shows just how unprepared Stanton is to lead this community.

In addition, some of the stuff she says is simply ill-informed:

"Susan has said all along that she’s not like other transgender people. She feels uncomfortable even looking at some, "like I’m seeing a bunch of men in dresses."

Eventually, she decided it was too early for transgender people to be federally protected. People need more time, more education, she says. "The transgender groups boo me, now, when I speak. Isn't that ironic?

"But I don't blame the human rights groups from separating the transgender people from the protected groups. Most Americans aren't ready for us yet," Susan says. Transgender people need to be able to prove they’re still viable workers — especially in the mainstream.

"The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies' rooms will be invaded by guys in drag," Susan says, "instead of someone like me."

I usually don't pay much attention to the HRC but they've been leaving an increasingly bad taste in my mouth for a while. And while I am clear that Susan Stanton has been treated horribly her former employers, I just can't understand why she's taking the stances she's taking. No, I can understand. She doesn't have enough experience in these matters, and she's trying to stay friends with the type of people who fired her. This is why trans people need protections like ENDA.

Comments

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

That line about 'viable workers' is nasty, and my first thought was 'since when do human rights hinge on whether someone is a viable worker?'

Is she referring to protection for people who take time off for things like surgery, to make sure they still have jobs afterwards? The first step would be medically classifying transsexuality as a condition that may require such treatment, and under that basis you'd think they'd already be protected in any situation where employees can take medical leave for a long enough period.

Of course, there are lots of cases of people taking medical leave or maternity leave, coming back to work, and then getting fired, which gets around laws that say an employer has to let them come back after an absence. But that's a much wider kettle of fish.

[sarah-dragon.livejournal.com]

Well if she keeps saying things like that then I doubt she will ever be popular among Transfolk at least those who are tired of being treated as subhuman. It's not time for us yet? People need more time? Time for what?

I have been watching B5 again lately and she reminds me of the one Narn was the Centauri lap dog after the Narn were conquered. Transfolk are not terrorists, we're not bombing buildings or putting plastigue in are garters. Why are we treated that way?

Now I admit, the Transcommunity does have its own 'party line' like any group or community and I sometimes feel that if I don't say all the right things then I am not welcome. However, this woman is basically saying that we and she should not expect our civil rights to be protected until the people of America have had enough 'time'.

I wonder where I can find more information about her...

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Her case was pretty famous not so long ago, so unsurprisingly, there's a Wikipedia entry.

[sarah-dragon.livejournal.com]

Yeah since you posted and I commented I went to Google. She has had a lot of publicity. Everyone considers her something of a folk hero I guess. I dunno, there is something very "Meet John Doe" about the whole thing that leaves me suspicious and queasy.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

"Transgender people need to be able to prove they’re still viable workers — especially in the mainstream."

Why would a transgender person not be a viable worker? Why does that need to be proven? In what way is that different from saying, "Black people need to be able to prove that if put in a position of responsibility they won't steal the company's money and blow it on weapons, drugs and women."?

[d269330400.livejournal.com]

Lola rennt? The icon, that is.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Got it in one.

[firecat]

Oy. Thanks for posting about this.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

Oi. And such self-hate, disguised as self-esteem in the line, "The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies' rooms will be invaded by guys in drag, instead of someone like me."

Probably doesn't even realize it yet, but I know that before I became aware of what I was *actually* saying when I said it, I sounded just as self-loathing when I said, "I'm not like those other fat girls, though."

[post-ecdysis.livejournal.com]

I don't consider Stanton's views to be ill-informed, but ugly, cynical, bigoted political opportunism. Just as the GLB community sold out the T's in ENDA, I fear that in ten years we'll have decided that we're ready to celebrate the civil rights of transsexuals at the cost of those icky transvestites.

The TransAdvocate editorial seems to be equally unenlightened. It strikes me as the same message: anyone whose stage of transition is not up to X is still a man, and therefore unworthy of transsexual privilege.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

"The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies' rooms will be invaded by guys in drag," Susan says, "instead of someone like me."

Yeah...and by avoiding the issue, by letting HRC use that dodge to avoid it, you're feeding the idea that such will occur if trans people are ever given rights. I don't get why people at HRC don't get that. Other than they don't want to get it because this all about assimilationism. About how gay people are "just like you", which is not ever going to work with the older generations in this country. And the younger people who see gay people that way also tend to see gender as a less strict construct.

I don't get along with most of the trans community anymore because I feel very disconnected from it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw them under the bus and tell them that they can't have rights because they look like "men in dresses". In part because that's not true for many. And for the ones that it is true for, why are they any less deserving of rights and protections? It's just sickening. And the reason that HRC takes this stance is that they're afraid that because many "mainstream" adults see trans people as "freaks", by advocating for trans rights people will see gays as being "freaks", too. And ultimately that's what they're afraid of; being told that they don't deserve rights because they're not "natural" and are a bunch of "freaks".

[jiawen]

I saw that, too. Is there a word for the attitude she expresses so clearly, the one where an oppressed person sucks up to the oppressor by pushing someone else who's oppressed into the mud?

[lovelyangel.livejournal.com]

Any time a person's attitude requires drawing lines between "us" and "them", there is bigotry. It's unfortunate that Susan chooses to highlight irrelevant distinctions instead of embracing her fellow humans. In the original article (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/31/Life/Susan_Stanton_s_lonel.shtml) she is quoted as saying "I'm not some drag queen in a pink miniskirt with 6-inch heels." Distancing herself from drag queens, men in dresses, and "other transgender people" who she is "not like", Susan will isolate herself and promote bigotry. Until she learns she is a member of a collective "we" and embraces the diversity of her peers, Susan will be a poor spokesperson.

The same is true for the HRC.

[redbird]

When I hear someone say "America is not ready for" a black or female president, or same-sex marriage rights, or any other aspect of equal rights, my assumption is that what they're actually saying is "I am not comfortable with this, but it's politically safer or emotionally more comfortable to say that other people 'aren't ready' than to admit to my own prejudices." In this case, I don't know whether it's self-hatred, or that she's not prepared to step away from her old "friends." Either way, "is not ready for" is no basis for fighting against your own side, or what you claim to be your own side. (That's aside from the point that if she isn't "a viable worker", an employer still wouldn't have to hire her, or keep her on. Oh, but I forget, she says "they," not "we.")

Re: HRC

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

hm. i've said that, and it's not because i am uncomfortable with my own prejudices (i'd be happy with a female or black president), but because i am cynical about american social attitudes.

i agree with her about america not being ready for TS rights, but i also think she's a bigot (i don't think it's necessarily self-hatred, i think it's othering of "men in dresses", and there is lots and lots of that going on in the M2F community; she is quite representative IME). HRC ought to dammit fight for those rights, not kowtow to stone age attitudes.

Re: HRC

[redbird]

I doubt, though, that you would argue that we shouldn't support a candidate who isn't a white male because it's "too soon," or not push for trans rights on the grounds that other people aren't ready. Because they won't move towards being ready if nobody pushes (in a variety of ways, definitely including education as well as working to pass laws).

Re: HRC

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

hm. i wonder. depends on the level of support and what's at stake. i'd gladly in general support candidates for whom i might feel it's "too soon", because as you say, pushing the envelope is important. but what if the choice comes down to, say, 4 more years of a really horrible regime or a white male candidate on the other side, and it'll be touch and go who'll win anyway?

i'd probably go for the white male. if strategic voting isn't important, i'd go for the candidate i like best instead and nevermind whether zie doesn't have a chance in hell. for me strategic voting doesn't kick in often, luckily, because i really hate it.

in the case of ENDA, i think it was a mistake to vote strategically, but i also think people of good will could come to a different conclusion. (i don't think susan stanton qualifies, though.)

[lcohen]

every group winds up with some of these--your clarence thomases and log cabin republicans who are not like those other icky members of whatever group they might otherwise be perceived to be a part of.

[sarah-dragon.livejournal.com]

Now see I disagree with that to an extent. There is no reason someone cannot be gay AND a Republican nor Transgendered AND a Republican or any combination there of. That does not make them a traitor to their own group. Fighting to change something you believe in is a noble if somewhat futile cause. Being an alternative political conservative does not make you ashamed of who you are nor should it.

Then we have this woman who seems to be trying to define a form of gender identity that is acceptable to the mainstream, which for this purpose includes the G&L communities.

Honestly her entire story seems a bit contrived to me and her procedure seemed to go through very quickly.

[lcohen]

the reason why i said log cabin republicans is not that they are republicans but that they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about how they are not like those promiscuous leather queens that they see in the yearly pride parade. at least our local set does.

[merlot-winters.livejournal.com]

so then its no surprise that HRC put a transphobic transperson on their board to be fully inclusive and confirm their own worst views about transfolk - it kills two birds with one stone.

Of course we all know transfolk who are newly transitioning, believe with all their heart that they will eventually become assimilated 'men' and 'women' who buy into all of the transphobic 'pass-or-die' bullshit and look down on trans people who decide not to run from their past, who decide that even though they will never be truly 'men' or 'women' like they may have wanted to they love themselves anyway and are glad they transitioned and who accept the struggle for our human rights.

Some of them will come back to the community after a few serious setbacks; some of them will assimilate if they have money, good looks, and lots of luck; and a few of them will be murdered or commit suicide. Doesn't mean they're better than the rest or that everyone else should wait for their rights.

[lollo.livejournal.com]

With her (IMO) statements she is also feeding the fear that all trans folk have. It is hard enough on all levels to Transition without hearing your "advocate" tearing your indentity to shreds. How many people will delay transitioning because of what someone in her position is saying about transfolk and our place in this society?

"some of them will assimilate if they have money, good looks, and lots of luck; and a few of them will be murdered or commit suicide. Doesn't mean they're better than the rest or that everyone else should wait for their rights."
Well said.

As one of the "lucky ones" I am compelled to attack the "trans women are drag queens in a pink miniskirt with 6-inch heels" stereotype. I have outed myself twice over it and will continue to do so. It is the curse and the power of incidental stealth.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Stanton is the John McCain of the TG community.
Almost everyone I know wanted to love her and was so proud of her.
Then she pretty much took all the expectations people had and dashed them into the ground.
With the result being all those positive feelings mirror switched and magnified into negative.
It's her right to do what she will.
HOWEVER as in all things, people have the right to respond to her actions as they choose.
Also, her cozying up to H.R.C. didn't help one bit.