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.