Eleven Years Ago (Give or Take a Month)

Where is this Dodo bird of an employer who loves gays but detests gender nonconformists?
Dale Carpenter, in 2004, seemingly doing his best impression of a different kind of bird whilst complaining about the justification put forth by the Cheryl Jacques-era HRC for withdrawing support (until it became convenient for Jacques’ successor unwithdraw it, of course) for gay-only ENDA bills.


How about the entity that, in 2004, employed Cheryl Jacques?

Perhaps the Washington Blade will finally get around to doing some reporting about the internal report which demonstrated that, a decade after Carpenter’s histrionics, as an employer, HRC “loves gays but detests gender nonconformists”?


We, of Reality, Take Credit

From Jezebel:

It turns out that hundreds of reviews trashing Stonewall, Roland Emmerich’s wildly misguided, whitewashed parody of the Stonewall Riots of ‘69, were effective in their goal of steering weekend moviegoers in literally any other possible direction.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the latest outing from the director of bombastic, wildly successful box office fare such as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow grossed a truly miserable $112,414 from 127 theaters for an location average of $871. That’s a wicked bomb, especially for a project whose architect was explicit in his desire to make a story central to LGBTQ rights accessible to the cis white masses

Get thee to a Black Tie Dinnery, Roland….

and stay there.

Why the Silence About the HRC Internal Report Matters

From the Sept. 14, 1989 issue of Bay Windows – coverage of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which hardwired transphobia into federal anti-discrimination law (in the process, effectively erasing a small amount of trans-positive precedent under the Nixon-era Rehabilitation Act):



Now, here is basically the same item as it appeared about two weeks later in the Southern Voice:


The SoVo image might be difficult to make out, but look close.

Still, no matter how close you look, you will not see the quote from HRC(F)’s Steve Smith praising the anti-trans (which, do note, was not just anti-transvestite; it included anti-transsexual language) and anti-gay amendments by Jesse Helms and William Armstrong.

“By and large we’re quite please with it,” stated HRCF lobbyist Steve Smith of the Helms and Armstrong exclusionary amendments.  “Homosexuality and transvestism and bisexuality are not disabilities and we are very happy to hear that Sen. Helms has taken this position and we agree with him 100 percent.”

Readers of Southern Voice didn’t see the that in 1989.

That means that readers of Southern Voice had a decision made for them.

That decision meant that they didn’t get to see HRC(F) praising Jesse Helms after HRC(F) got what HRC(F) wanted – namely, a non-exclusion for AIDS.


How much of the SoVo readership, had it had the opportunity to read the Bay Windows version of the news item, would have had their opinion of HRCF – to become HRC six years later – sufficiently altered in the negative to significantly alter the historical trajectory that has led to HRC’s position as being both the LGBT community’s money vortex and the biggest practical obstacle to passage of federal LGBT anti-discrimination legislation?

I don’t know.

I do know that, as of this writing, the Washington Blade – “America’s Leading Gay News Source” – has not offered its readership (which, unlike in 1989, includes an internet component) any substantive coverage of the HRC Internal Report – a report which exposed the organization’s entrenched culture of misogyny and transphobia….

you know, pretty much everything that the trans community has been saying has been entrenched in HRC’s corporate DNA for two decades or more.

Historically, that will matter 25 years from now.

In all practical terms, it matters now.

What they decide not to report on, people (how many? I don’t know, but the number is higher than zero) cannot use in deciding how to view not just HRC but its critics…

you know, the people whose criticism of HRC was validated by the internal report.

I’m Sure the Coverage of the Internal Report that Proved the Trans Community’s Allegations Against HRC to be True Will Follow Shortly


Still Observin’….

From Facebook, Jenna Fischetti writes:

Six days ago, BuzzFeed News released details of an internal report commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign to examine its organization. The report highlighted major diversity and organizational problems.

BuzzFeed was followed by several other outlets covering this report. Six days later, The Washington Blade is still silent.

Some claimed the report allowed us to “learn” about the problems of lack of diversity at HRC. We already KNEW those things.

The only things we learned about this story is who is remaining silent about HRC’s past and current actions.

Who is remaining silent?

Well, look what Queer Channel Media has added to its spin cycle instead of any evident reporting on the HRC internal report:

QCM-0609-01 QCM-0609-02 QCM-0609-03

Countdown to HRC Using This as ‘Proof’ of its ‘Diversity’ in 3…, 2…, 1….


h/t Joelle Ruby Ryan

Shocking? Possibly – But No One Should Be Surprised.

From Gay City News:

On the eve of a critical State Senate committee hearing on a measure providing, for the first time in Utah history, nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), said, “The desire exhibited by the Mormon Church to work toward common ground should serve as a model for other faith traditions here in the United States.”

A model, eh?

If only it was that kind of a model….

If only HRC was actually an organization that gave a damn about whether working-class gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people – you know, the sort of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people who, unlike the permanently-employed activist class of Rhode Island Avenue and their A-Gay spouses, actually tend to need the ability to seek redress in court against discrimination – live or die….

If only I wouldn’t digress….

In the immediate aftermath of the bill’s enactment, the ACLU of Utah called it “historic.” On Facebook, Jennifer Pizer, the national law and policy project director at Lambda Legal, terming the new law “an historic shift,” wrote, “Momentum! Onward!!”

If only Lambda Legal had been willing ten years ago to hire a well-qualified 40 year-old trans woman who has done much research into not just trans law but also the activities of the christianist right instead of a lesser-qualified, much younger trans man….

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), posted the message, “Wow. Just Wow.”

As Legislature claims to balance civil rights, religious liberty, back-channel influence of legal scholar scrutinized

But, as those outside of professional LGBT advocacy circles learned details about the bill — what provisions it included, what areas were not addressed, how it was negotiated, and what was included in a second, companion measure — those initial exuberant assessments, and Griffin’s use of the word “model” in particular, drew no small amount of fire.

That dissent peaked this week when Queer Nation called attention to a University of Illinois law professor, Robin Fretwell Wilson, who the group said “wrote” the Utah measure. In a March 16 release, Queer Nation documented Wilson’s extensive record going back years in pressing for broad and damaging religious carve-outs from LGBT rights and marriage equality measures.

“It’s shocking that the Human Rights Campaign ignored widely available information about Wilson and has partnered with someone who is clearly seeking to do great harm to the LGBT community,” Ken Kidd, a group spokesperson, said.

Is it really all that shocking that Gay, Inc. would sell out everyone who it claims to represent?

Perhaps, if you view “shocking” as a synonym for “horrifying” and/or “disgusting.”

But if you’re surprised, then you need to wipe the kool-aid off of your chin.

[A] striking feature of the Utah legislation — especially when considered in the context of what’s going on nationwide — is the preemption of any local ordinances that govern employment and housing discrimination. Just last month, the LGBT community waged an unsuccessful fight against such a preemption law in Arkansas [NOTE: the “community” perhaps did fight it, but we know that HRC could only be bothered to go “on record against” it], where the Republican Legislature acted in response to several municipalities moving forward on LGBT rights initiatives. Tennessee enacted a similar law several years ago, and in both cases advocacy groups have argued that Red State action of this sort throws a roadblock up against local relief in more urbanized parts of a state, where political progress is possible.

Long ago I predicted that the sell-out, er…, compromise that would finally get ENDA (gay-only, of course – the kind that Gay, Inc. then wanted and still wants) through Congress, even a Republican-controlled one, would be federal preemption clause, a statement that Congress was ‘occupying the field’ (a politico-legal term of art) of sexual orientation employment anti-discrimination law, thereby nullifying any state or local sexual orientation employment discrimination laws – including the ones with trans-inclusive definitions of sexual orientation, thereby wiping out trans anti-discrimination protections in those states (and possibly everywhere, depending on what the Supreme Court might do with such a law.) Such a sell-out, er…, compromise would allow some anti-gay legislators to cast a vote that they could claim (to the gullible among the LGB) ‘proves’ they’re not anti-gay while simultaneously allowing them to keep up their street cred among the christianist right by pointing out the fact that the law would wipe out trans protections where they already exist.

That, of course, hasn’t happened…


Uh huh….