Context: Sixteen years ago I was the trans issues columnist for the Texas Triangle, a now-defunct LGBT paper in…seriously, need I say it? The print version of the paper came out on Fridays – and my column deadline was Tuesday afternoon. Do the math. For the issue which would hit the stands on the Friday following the 2000 presidential election, my column would be one that I’d turned in a few hours before the polls closed.
The title for the column I wrote for that week, knowing the time-lag issues, was intended to be somewhat humorous.
Be careful what you’re sarcastic about….
By Katrina C. Rose
This edition of my column puts me in a weird position.
No – not that kind of a position. Get your minds out of the gutter.
My deadline for submission for publication on Friday is Tuesday, noon-ish. Consequently, even though these words won’t appear until after the election, I’ll be turning them in before the polls close.
Believe me, I thought about rolling the prognostication dice and yammering about a victory by one major clown, er…, candidate or the other. However, I have no desire to serve up a headline that might put the Texas Triangle in the history books along side a certain 1948 edition of the Chicago Daily
Well, I have no desire to do dat unless I can make it a really nifty, keen, cool, boffo one – like the one at the top of this page. So, if you ever have the opportunity, get whoever actually did win to pose with this column in hand.
Gore might do it. Despite his popularly-perceived lack o’ pulse, the guy supposedly does have a pretty good sense of humor.
Bush? Well, just tell him its an article about the execution of some poor shmuck whose court-appointed lawyer slept through his capital murder trial. Bush won’t know the difference.
Buchanan? Uh – let’s not even go there. I just ate.
Do save a copy in case he does win in 2004. But, as for this year…the mere fact that his candidacy irked Barney Frank made the thought of Nader Perot-ing Gore almost palatable.
Emphasis on the ‘almost.’
Unlike his disgustingly bigoted stance on transgender inclusion in ENDA which he props up with alleged political concerns (which, if you pay attention to the history lessons I’ve provided over the last few months, you know are political concerns that he and his predecessors in transphobic interest have
created themselves by their own unconscionable inaction on transgender issues), Frank had a valid point about Nader’s possible effect on Gore’s vote tally.
Yet, it was smothered in so much of his trademark conservaqueer arrogance that I’ve been tempted to vote for Nader just out of spite – not toward the two-party anti-system that sickens more and more voters with each passing election but as a personal gesture toward Frank.
Not gonna do it.
Wouldn’t be prudent.
Though right about the math of voting for Nader, I wonder: Was Frank really concerned that Nader might pull votes from Gore? Or, was he concerned that Nader might actually win?
Was Frank upset that Nader’s consumer advocacy crusades haven’t specifically addressed “gonadal politics” in general or was Frank upset at a lack of attention paid to how shoddy expensive merchandise might disproportionately affect certain overly-rich gay white males who only were able to become
overly-rich by being closeted while those fighting for their legal equality were routinely denied even the most menial jobs?
In other words: was Frank upset that Nader might have a compartmentalized liberal agenda that ignores gay rights to the same degree that Frank and his ilk ignore do transgender rights when ENDA strategy is mapped out?
Irrespective of whether Bush or Gore has won by the time that Triangle readers see this, I do agree with those who criticized Nader for trying to make a push during the final weeks of the campaign. He should have realized that he was hosed when he was shut out of the debates.
So,Katrina, why don’t all of you obnoxious, deluded stereotypes just shut up? You’ve been left out of ENDA, after all. Accept it and get thee to a prostitutery.
Very simple: On ENDA, we’re right and you transphobia-addled, assimilationist turds are wrong.
Similarly, as to the election, those who say that, given two-party dominance and the modus operandi of the electoral college scheme, a vote for any third-party candidate is a wasted vote are right while those who say otherwise are wrong.
Besides, I’m not saying that Nader should have completely thrown in the towel and just crawled off to New York to try for another guest-host gig on Saturday Night Live. He still could have made a big statement, without affecting the electoral college totals and possibly handing the election to Bush on a silver platter, by going to so-called ‘safe’ Bush states and being a parasite on Gore’s votes only in those states.
But, the ENDA battle isn’t over. Inclusion not only is right (remind me again: Which candidate is it who has harped about a difficult right being better than an easy wrong? Are you listening, Al?), it is the only
Failure to include transgender people killed a Minnesota 1975 gay rights proposal.
Yes – failure to include. Conservaqueers and their friends engineered a non-inclusive bill and all hell broke loose when non-conservaqueers publicly declared that they wouldn’t accept this evil deal. The bill then died an ugly death – a death that was fully deserved.
Think it can’t happen again, only in D.C. this time?
Transgender people (and not just this one transsexual) are angry. Thirty years of institutionalized exclusion by gays is all we will take. With not simply non-inclusion but, apparently, an ADA-esque specific statutory exclusion being a possibility now for Barney’s ENDA, rest assured that transgender people will, if necessary, work to kill ENDA.
And we’ll be fully justified.
I just hope that by the time you all read this Ralph Nader hasn’t killed anything other than his chances of being invited to a party at Barney Frank’s house, so we’ll all at least have some chance – if conservaqueers wake up and become willing to compromise.
…and she wants everyone to stay that way.
“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.