Last week, the House of Representatives voted on and passed HR 3685. The final vote was 235 to 184. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA was introduced by Barney Frank in September of this year and excluded gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill was originally introduced in 1974 under a different name - the Gay Rights Bill, HR 14752. Currently, there are 13 states that prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Frank's argument for excluding gender identity was that the bill would not garner the votes necessary for passage which has created a firestorm in the gay, lesbian and transgender communities. The crux of the argument is that we should not exclude transgender folks from the bill simply to win legislation because they will be forever forgotten. On the other side are those, including myself, that believe that after all these years, we'll take the bill without gender expression. Some see this as unfair to the transgender community but others, whom I agree with, see it as an incredible win for gays and lesbians. One such group is United ENDA which includes gay, lesbian and transgender groups. One of my favorite writers says it best here.
I have always argued that the T is not a part of the gay and lesbian community and I'm very happy to see that I'm not alone. Of course once you make such a statement you are automatically labeled a transphobe but as a black lesbian Republican I've heard worse. This is what the Washington Post had to say about the vote. The key lines there are: "Transgender people must channel the activism this action sparked into a long-term effort to educate the public and lawmakers about the discrimination they face." After all, gays and lesbians have been doing just that for years.
Friday, November 16, 2007
More Oppression
I attended a forum last evening on cancer and I'm not sure if I'm annoyed or simply disappointed. The forum was sponsored by the Lesbian Cancer Initiative which provides information and referral; short-term counseling; support groups for survivors and caregivers/partners; and community educational and social event. I had not heard about the group before but agreed to attend when my partner asked me to. I went with the thought in mind that it was more for her than for me because she really needs support. While cancer has left me on empty it has left my partner less joyful. And to make matters worse her mom was recently diagnosed with cancer so I knew that this was important. This would be one selfless act that I could perform for someone else than myself.
The title of the keynote speech was, "Whose Life Is It Anyway?: Navigating the Cancer Journey On Our Own Terms." From this title I made the assumption that we would be given information on "navigating" our way around the health care system, securing treatment that was me centered, etc. Well, I'm not sure if the keynote speaker read the title but my expectations were shot to hell. I knew that it was not going to be a good presentation when her introductory slide stated something like this, Overcoming Oppression based on sexual orientation, gender and race. This is not the exact title but you get the drift. From the first to last slide Dr. Gelo launched into a dissertation on how sexual orientation, gender, race etc., influences the kind of treatment you receive and how important it is to talk up. She also included discussion on the Tuskegee experiment to bolster her argument that race was as prevalent a roadblock as any other factor.
As I was squirming in my seat I tried to remember why I was there, my partner needed to be there to connect with a support group. This helped me to keep sitting through this nonsense and to be quiet at the end when Dr. Gelo asked for questions. I sat through this anthropological thesis and wondered if it would ever end. I sat through it when she kept beating up on Western culture and medicine. I kept listening when she reminded us that we were subjects of the white patriarchy. I kept listening even when I realized that assumed that her audience would be in lock step with her presentation. I couldn't be more disappointed. The really sad thing about this was that it reinforced the oppression theory of gays and lesbians. This is truly unfortunate because some if not many in the audience bought into this theory especially coming from a "professional." Dr. Florence Gelo has her D.Min which is a doctor of ministry. She is not a health care provider but a behavioral science coordinator for the Family Medicine residency program at Drexel University. She is also a pastoral psychotherapist in private practice specializing in grief and loss and chronic illness. Based on her background, Dr. Gelo was probably well suited for her talk last evening but not for the assumed goal of the program. On a positive note, my partner made the connections she needed for a support group.
The title of the keynote speech was, "Whose Life Is It Anyway?: Navigating the Cancer Journey On Our Own Terms." From this title I made the assumption that we would be given information on "navigating" our way around the health care system, securing treatment that was me centered, etc. Well, I'm not sure if the keynote speaker read the title but my expectations were shot to hell. I knew that it was not going to be a good presentation when her introductory slide stated something like this, Overcoming Oppression based on sexual orientation, gender and race. This is not the exact title but you get the drift. From the first to last slide Dr. Gelo launched into a dissertation on how sexual orientation, gender, race etc., influences the kind of treatment you receive and how important it is to talk up. She also included discussion on the Tuskegee experiment to bolster her argument that race was as prevalent a roadblock as any other factor.
As I was squirming in my seat I tried to remember why I was there, my partner needed to be there to connect with a support group. This helped me to keep sitting through this nonsense and to be quiet at the end when Dr. Gelo asked for questions. I sat through this anthropological thesis and wondered if it would ever end. I sat through it when she kept beating up on Western culture and medicine. I kept listening when she reminded us that we were subjects of the white patriarchy. I kept listening even when I realized that assumed that her audience would be in lock step with her presentation. I couldn't be more disappointed. The really sad thing about this was that it reinforced the oppression theory of gays and lesbians. This is truly unfortunate because some if not many in the audience bought into this theory especially coming from a "professional." Dr. Florence Gelo has her D.Min which is a doctor of ministry. She is not a health care provider but a behavioral science coordinator for the Family Medicine residency program at Drexel University. She is also a pastoral psychotherapist in private practice specializing in grief and loss and chronic illness. Based on her background, Dr. Gelo was probably well suited for her talk last evening but not for the assumed goal of the program. On a positive note, my partner made the connections she needed for a support group.
Monday, November 12, 2007
My apologies to my faithful readers but I have been sick for the past three weeks. My cancer is still putting up a fight and wont let go so I must do the same. However, there are days when I feel as though I'm down for the count. I'll keep blogging as my health permits so don't go anywhere. I intend to be at the finish line.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The Bachelor Episode 4
I promise I won't cry as I write this, I promise. Here is another great example of what's wrong with our culture. I hate to tell these women this but they are behaving like high priced whores. The number one reason for these women going on this show is that the guy is a millionare but I guess for some people that spells LOVE.
It Starts at Home
Here is a very interesting article on parents setting limits on television watching. I could not agree with it more. The fact that more parents are taking their responsibility of raising kids seriously sends a strong and positive message to me and hopefully to others.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
I LOVE NEW YORK - the manstack
In the next several postings I'm hoping to show evidence as to what's wrong with our society today. This is just one example of many as to what's wrong with television in 2007 and probably for awhile to come. There are very few decent shows on the air these days and more and more "reality shows." Call me a curmudgeon and a prude but something has got to give. Of course you can say to me, turn the channel, but that's not a legitimate response. These shows are telling us something about our society and I don't know about you but it's an awful commentary.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Do You Speak English?
Illegal is defined as contrary to existing statues, regulations, etc., unauthorized, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, unlicensed. I'm gonna bet a dollar that many people would know the meaning of this word even if they didn't posses a dictionary. But in 2007 it seems that many, especially so-called leaders, have forgotten its meaning. In this article, Lawrence Downes is somehow suggesting that if we just take the word out then we can have a sensible debate. Well Mr. Downes I don't agree with you. This is one of the many obtuse comments he makes, "Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred it is detestable.' Give me a break. There are several things wrong with this comment. First, by calling someone illegal because that's what they are, is not necessarily denying that they maybe "decent." Decent people do stupid things all the time. Second, to lower this discussion to race baiting is exactly what he is arguing against - stopping the conversation.
He goes on to state, "But at least 'undocumented' - and an even better word, 'unauthorized' - contain the possibility of reparation and atonement, and allow for a sensible reaction proportional to the offense." Ok, so lets just change the name and everything will be alright. Lets simply refer to folks who broke into our country as decent people and call it a day. And while we are at it lets just give them the keys to the front door so they don't tear down our back doors. If we are not going to use the word then we are not going to do what's necessary to fix this problem. And calling people who simply want servers, computer techs and anyone else answering the phone to speak English xenophobes is ridiculous name calling and that too doesn't help the discussion.
He goes on to state, "But at least 'undocumented' - and an even better word, 'unauthorized' - contain the possibility of reparation and atonement, and allow for a sensible reaction proportional to the offense." Ok, so lets just change the name and everything will be alright. Lets simply refer to folks who broke into our country as decent people and call it a day. And while we are at it lets just give them the keys to the front door so they don't tear down our back doors. If we are not going to use the word then we are not going to do what's necessary to fix this problem. And calling people who simply want servers, computer techs and anyone else answering the phone to speak English xenophobes is ridiculous name calling and that too doesn't help the discussion.
What's Really Behind the Polls
I have to admit that I have not been keeping up with politics or anything else for that matter because I have been sick but this article caught my eye. Rich makes a very interesting case for Giuliani's high poll numbers. Several of his comments are reflective of what many believe is the defining moment in the Republican Party. It would almost seem as if he is saying, "Wake up or die." The Republican Party, to say the least, has had a very hard road to hoe and it probably started with the Terry Schiavo story. If you think about it, if Republicans, yes I am one, really believe in smaller government they would have kept their damn mouths shut when Terry Schiavo's story hit the airwaves. But from then on they have been stepping into the proverbial pile of you know what.
It is obvious from reading the article that Rich is saying that regardless of the huffing and puffing by the so-called morality squad, i.e. James Dobson, Gary Bauer etc., Giuliani's "moderate" views must be connecting with someone. If what Rich says is right and the polls are accurate then ridding ourselves of the Dobson types, at least for the influence they wield, will be a victory for sensible people.
It is obvious from reading the article that Rich is saying that regardless of the huffing and puffing by the so-called morality squad, i.e. James Dobson, Gary Bauer etc., Giuliani's "moderate" views must be connecting with someone. If what Rich says is right and the polls are accurate then ridding ourselves of the Dobson types, at least for the influence they wield, will be a victory for sensible people.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Life with a Mediport
I was suppose to have a Pet Scan and a CT Scan this week but my insurance company hasn't approved the procedures as of yet. Waiting is always a pain in the arse but wait I must. In the meantime I thought I would share with you what my mediport looks like. For those of you who don't know what a mediport is here is a quick and dirty. A port is comprised of two components, a self-sealing injection port and a catheter that enters the vein. The port and catherter are placed entirely under the skin using a small incision. There will be a bump on the chest wall where the injection port is located. This is the site where the access needle is placed.
The needle is used to access my port each and every time I go for chemotherapy and is also used to draw blood. I have had three of these bad boys and the third so far is a charm. When I got the first one I was afraid of moving much less take a shower. I feared that "anything" I did wold rip it from my chest. But that hasn't happened yet and I doubt it will. Other than the small scar where the port is located and the bump you wouldn't be able to tell I had something in my chest. And the first time it broke I had severe pain in my left arm. That's how we knew something was wrong. But it has become like another part of my body.
I hope to get this bad boy out as soon as I get the "all clear" sign from my oncologist, which I'm hoping is soon. Although they recommend keeping it in for a year or so after you have been told you are in remission. So these tests are damn important and I hope my insurance company ponies up in the next day or so. So, wish me luck.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Clock is Ticking
For some weeks now there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the impending passage of the Employment Non-discrimination Act or ENDA. The controversy, and reason for a second bill, is over the inclusion of gender identity. The inclusion of gender identity would protect members of the transgender community. The main bill, H.R. 2015 was introduced in April of this year and is very close to a vote in the House. The bill in its current form was first introduced in 1996 and under another name in 1974. The bill, if passed, would protect gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs simply because they are gay and lesbian. Currently, there are 31 states in which gays can be terminated based on their sexual orientation. The bill's main sponsors are Representatives Barney Frank, Chris Shays and Tammy Baldwin.
The controversy started when Representative Frank declared that the bill has a better chance of passage if it did not include gender identity. This faux pau, the opinion of many LGBT organizations, is one that they will not tolerate and according to many the LGBT community is in an uproar. Two weeks ago there were 113 groups who signed a pledge opposing the bill if it did not include gender identity. One of the most vocal has been the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Matt Foreman and of course members of the transgender community. The Human Rights Campaign, forever playing it safe so that they can keep the donations coming said they would not oppose the bill but they wouldn't support it either. What else could they say when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the recipient of HRC's National Equality Award.
So here is the problem as I see it. Many have said and will say that if we move ahead with H.R. 2015 without gender identity we are essentially kicking transgendered folks off the bus. Now, that would be true if: 1) trans folks were on the bus to begin with and 2) gender identity were analogous to sexual orientation. Neither of these two things are true. Gender identity is as different from sexual orientation as night is from day. Gays and lesbians still consider themselves men and women who love the same sex. And for the last 30 years gays and lesbians have been doing to work to get ENDA passed. So, from a pragmatic point of view why not support the bill in its current form and do the education to include and pass another bill in the future? Of course the 113 groups and others feel that we are abandoning our trans family. Well I got news for those people, they don't consider themselves one of us. In reading the literature, a very high percentage of transgendered folks consider themselves straight. And the number that consider themselves gay and lesbian are very, very small. Am I transphobic? I guess to a lot of people I am but life goes on.
We cannot and should not stop passage of this important bill because a few people are upset. Dale Carpenter says it best when he says in this article, "Passage of ENDA is possible only because gay people have organized politically to educate Americans about homosexuality and to elect sympathetic representatives." This is the true issue surrounding this controversy. The work has been done and to simply throw it away because some feel we are dissing the transgender community is at best, stupid.
The controversy started when Representative Frank declared that the bill has a better chance of passage if it did not include gender identity. This faux pau, the opinion of many LGBT organizations, is one that they will not tolerate and according to many the LGBT community is in an uproar. Two weeks ago there were 113 groups who signed a pledge opposing the bill if it did not include gender identity. One of the most vocal has been the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Matt Foreman and of course members of the transgender community. The Human Rights Campaign, forever playing it safe so that they can keep the donations coming said they would not oppose the bill but they wouldn't support it either. What else could they say when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the recipient of HRC's National Equality Award.
So here is the problem as I see it. Many have said and will say that if we move ahead with H.R. 2015 without gender identity we are essentially kicking transgendered folks off the bus. Now, that would be true if: 1) trans folks were on the bus to begin with and 2) gender identity were analogous to sexual orientation. Neither of these two things are true. Gender identity is as different from sexual orientation as night is from day. Gays and lesbians still consider themselves men and women who love the same sex. And for the last 30 years gays and lesbians have been doing to work to get ENDA passed. So, from a pragmatic point of view why not support the bill in its current form and do the education to include and pass another bill in the future? Of course the 113 groups and others feel that we are abandoning our trans family. Well I got news for those people, they don't consider themselves one of us. In reading the literature, a very high percentage of transgendered folks consider themselves straight. And the number that consider themselves gay and lesbian are very, very small. Am I transphobic? I guess to a lot of people I am but life goes on.
We cannot and should not stop passage of this important bill because a few people are upset. Dale Carpenter says it best when he says in this article, "Passage of ENDA is possible only because gay people have organized politically to educate Americans about homosexuality and to elect sympathetic representatives." This is the true issue surrounding this controversy. The work has been done and to simply throw it away because some feel we are dissing the transgender community is at best, stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)