No – seriously.
You – and your organization – are killing trans people, and have been since 1980.
Op-ed: What Not To Do, When Calling Yourself a Transgender Ally
Jeff Krehely, the chief foundation officer of the Human Rights Campaign, discusses the importance of transgender advocacy, in light of the recent controversy surrounding Janet Mock and Piers Morgan.
What should you do when calling yourself a transgender ally?
For starters, maybe you should think twice about working for an organization that, since its founding in 1980, has had but 3 1/2 trans employees, only one of whom was a trans woman (and, as we all know, that trans woman was hired for no other reason than to get trans people to shup up in the aftermath of 2007 but she was purposely plucked from outside all known trans activism circles so, once hired, HRC could claim that it finally hired a trans woman while also not subjecting its employees to anyone who might actually educate Gay, Inc. about how things really are.)
But, if you are going to get rich in the world of Gay, Inc. permanent employment, then maybe you should expend some energy to get your employer to stop discriminating against trans women.
Just a thought.
Most white gay men like me — even liberal ones — didn’t have much incentive to pressure LGBT groups to expand their agenda, especially as the right-wing led efforts to outlaw our right to marry. Because of my own privileges, that was my main cause and my sole source of oppression in 2004 America.
I think that the Human Rights Campaign has done as much if not more on transgender issues than most other national [ gay and lesbian ] organizations. If you really look at the actual work.
You mean five years after Queen Elizabeth III said that?
A couple of years later, I stumbled into a professional LGBT job. And even though I could be hired with very little cultural competency when it came to transgender people….
Okay, stop. Lets think about that.
A couple of years after 2004.
If its four years, that would put things a full decade after Queen Elizabeth III’s claim re: HRC – and we all know how HRC ‘educates’ throughout the LGB( ) world, right?
Again, think about that.
It would appear that the “LGBT job” that he could be hired for with “very little curtural competency” re: trans people was with the “LGBT Movement Advancement Project.”
Again, think about that.
…things suddenly came to a head. In 2007, gender identity was dropped from the
House’s version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the LGBT movement
declared war on itself.
No, the “LGBT movement” didn’t declare war “on itself,” Jeff. Your current employer continued (escalated?) its decades-long pattern and practice of political discrimination against trans people – committing civil and possibly criminal fraud in the process via Joe Solmonese’s guarantee that your current employer would only support a trans-inclusive ENDA – but pretty much everyone other than your current employer, Barney Frank, and a gay male law professor or two called HRC out for their bigotry.
The great mythical philosopher Emma Frost once pointed out to some mythical CIA-oids that use of the word “war” implies that both sides stand at least some chance of winning the conflict.
‘Declaring war on itself’ implies – well, no, it explicitly states – that both sides initiated the hostilities. Using this to describe what happened in 2007 is an exercise in complete denial of the reality that trans people had spent years trying to deal with HRC in good faith only to be continualy lied to and to be ultimately victimized by an HR 3685 sneak attack.
What Not To Do, When Calling Yourself a Transgender Ally
Well, pushing HRC historical revisionism spin would be something I would expect an ally not to do.
But that’s just me.
I didn’t yet understand how keenly transgender people needed workplace equality.
Two questions here.
(1) Why aren’t you willing to explicitly name your curent employer as the key non-Barney-Frany entity responsible for trans people’s excision from ENDA in 2007 (and all years before that)?
(2) Why aren’t you willng now to openly question not only what sort of ‘education’ your current employer actually did on trans issues prior to 2007 but what sort of ‘education’ it was actually capable of doing given that, in 2007, it had in its history only ever had 1 1/2 trans employees?
At some point after 2007, Jeff continued the permanent Gay, Inc. employment journey with an “LGBT”-specific gig with the Center for American Progress, then-and-current home of legendary HRC transphobe executroid Winnie Stachelberg.
You can take the hack out of HRC, but you can’t take the HRC out of the hack it would seem.
[T]he transgender community isn’t the only group that will likely be left out of this narrower version of the legislation, including employees of small businesses, employees of religious institutions, and gay and lesbian individuals in the armed forces. But this bill was built on compromise; it was never intended to be the whole package, and should therefore be seen as a first step.
Yep, that Winnie Stachelberg.
And then in February 2013, Jeff alights at the Mount Olympus of Gay, Inc. permanent employment – HRC – as “vice president and chief foundation officer.”
2013, incidentally, would be thirteen years after he got a masters degree in public policy analysis – and it would be fifteen years after some trans lawyers got their degrees and law licenses (a helluva lot longer than that for some of us) and who have never gotten a sniff from Gay, Inc., much less three bites.
And February 2013 would be a month or so before….
“In the midst of a tremendously historic week for our community, two unfortunate incidents at the United for Marriage event at the Supreme Court last week have caused pain in the community,” HRC’s Fred Sainz, Vice President, Communications and Marketing, says in the HRC statement:
In one case, a trans activist was asked to remove the trans pride flag from behind the podium, and in another, a queer undocumented speaker was asked to remove reference to his immigration status in his remarks.
HRC joined in a coalition statement on Friday apologizing for these incidents and the individuals involved have personally offered their apologies to those affected. But to be perfectly clear, HRC regrets the incidents and offers our apologies to those who were hurt by our actions. We failed to live up to the high standard to which we hold ourselves accountable and we will strive to do better in the future. Through both our legislative and programmatic work, HRC remains committed to making transgender equality a reality.
Jeff, at the time you drank the purple-n-yellow employment kool-aid – fifteen years after it claimed to be doing more on trans issues than anyone/anything else – your current employer couldn’t trot out a trans employee to deliver a fake apology on behalf of your current employer because your current employer had no trans employees which could kinda, sorta possibly maybe be at least part of an explanation why your current employer would have had a hand in the anti-trans incident at the Marriage Rally.
Have you actually about that?
Before, during or after cashing any of the paychecks you’ve received from HRC over the past year?
You know…a year in which it would appear that HRC has only increased its trans hiring by one – and, of course, not a trans woman?
I was an advocate, but I wasn’t an ally.
And you’re not currently an employee of an organization that doesn’t have a de facto ‘trans women need not apply’ sign on its front door.