[identity profile] foxgloved.livejournal.com
For all you folks involved in radical activism, I wanted to point out some egregious nonsense recently published in the most recent Slingshot Collective newspaper. You might want to give this a read before purchasing a 2013 Slingshot Organizer or subscribing to the newspaper.

Cut for lots and lots of cissexism, and a fair bit of sarcasm in response. )

I know this kind of cissexism pops up everywhere and it's often better to just ignore it. But considering this came from a publication that carries weight in lots of anti-oppressive spaces, I think it's worth being aware of.
[identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
I see that new research at Northwestern University indicates that bisexual men do indeed exist, in contradiction of a 2005 study from the same institution that appeared to show the opposite.

So far, so duh. The interest from the point of view of this group is that the leader of the earlier study was J. Michael Bailey, author of The Man Who Would Be Queen and arch-proponent of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory. As you will recall, one of the many problems with Bailey's book was the bias in the selection of his subjects (whom he appears to have found mostly in gay bars). It's unsurprising, then, to read that his 2005 study into bisexuality was also vitiated by the fact that subjects "were recruited through advertisements in gay-oriented and alternative publications".

If Bailey's research into bisexuals is being found wanting, and that is being reported in the New York Times, isn't that yet another nail in the coffin of his "research" into autogynephilia, which was flawed in the exact same way?
[identity profile] alinonymous.livejournal.com
hey,
I'm Ali; i'm an eighteen year old preeverything mtf computer science/computer engineering student at university.
while I do have issues with the residence hall that cause me to think that i won't transition socially until i no longer live in it, this post isn't about that. I have a contact in the admissions department (she used to be residence hall director) that would help me with issues pertaining to that.

what this post about is the internet filtering at my uni. residence hall net is reasonably unfettered (as it should be) whereas wireless in the academic buildings is rather filtered. it seems like the filter is doing dumb keyword filtering on "transgender" and "transsexual" which filters many actual support / lgbt community sites while letting some bad ones through.

anyway I could email uni IT about it but I dont want to possibly out myself by emailing from my uni email and I don't know if helpdesk@$UNI honors requests from non-uni accounts which is how I would avoid associating my trans identity with my identity as a student.

What should i do?

ali

ETA: It would be trivial enough for me to bypass the filtering - I just VPN out of uni network - but I am opposed to censorware blocking the free exchange of information and i realise not everyone at uni is as technically proficient as I am. When they research transgender topics then the sites are blocked is not a good thing.
ext_8007: Drinking tea (Default)
[identity profile] auntysarah.livejournal.com
I'd just like to take a moment to draw attention to something my MP, Julian Huppert, said yesterday in committee in respect to transgender people and identity documents, the selected transcript is taken from here. For background, the committee is engaged with dismantling the previous government's Identity Cards Bill, in which transgender people were to be issued with two ID cards - one male, the other female. Anyway, I think the following is made of total win:
There are a number of different circumstances: there are people who are neutrois and inter-sex people—there is a complicated collection. The simple solution to many of these circumstances is just not to have gender information on any of these identity documents. The people I spoke to would push for that very strongly. They are concerned about a repeat of what happened in Trafalgar square at Pride 2008 when there were inappropriate demands for gender recognition certificates. Hon. Members will know some of the history of that.

There does not seem to be a need for identity documents of any kind to have gender information. It is not a very good biometric; it is roughly a 50:50 split. Military ID, such as the MOD90, which obviously can have quite a high security clearance, contains no gender information. That might be what we should look at.

The emphasis is mine. I am so very proud of him :-)

On Bravery

May. 8th, 2010 04:29 pm
[identity profile] fratboydan.livejournal.com
In the previous thread (http://community.livejournal.com/transgender/2298347.html) the OP posed the following question:

do you get told how brave you are for being trans? Does it piss you off as well? Do you have any more thoughts on why it might cause such a strong reaction? I'm sure I can't be alone in this :)

The OP was not alone - after reading through the comment thread at the time, I started thinking. So I went back through and sorted the responses:

13 replies said they felt the statement was patronizing/condescending or annoying
7 replies said something to the effect of, 'the comment is erroneous because being trans isn't being brave, it's being yourself'
5 replies said they thought the statement was fine because being trans *is* brave
2 replies said being trans is brave, but shut up about it because your words can't describe my experience

These replies bothered me. For one, I dislike the use of the patronizing/condescending arguments in identity politics in general. To me, it stinks of arrogance and elitism - and is at best an academic exercise in semantics. Pointing out 'condescension' suggests that you think you know better and so should they.

The thing is others just don't know what it's like (a sentiment echoed in many of the replies). Naturally, this makes some people feel inclined to suggest that being trans isn't brave at all. But I think it is brave to be yourself despite the societal consequences. Others recognize that, which is why they say as much. And no, the trans experience isn't universal (so it may have required more 'bravery' in some instances than others).

Perhaps BRAVERY isn't the best word to describe 'the trans experience' - but I think the direction of the statement works. It's a word they're choosing to try to understand your experience.

Yes, I agree that they'll never be able to define your experience for you - but who says that's what they're trying to do? Only one reply really touched on this idea (which was met with derision):

That can be said about anything in life, though. We can't all experience everything, but we can understand a general idea and respect/empathize/etc.

I think that is the kind of spirit we need to cultivate. I feel that a lot of people in the world are afraid of it, and as a result, afraid of being themselves. Society has 'rules' and a lot of people feel the need to follow them. This is because, unfortunately, 'breaking them' can have adverse consequences for the individual. Further compounding the problem is the fact the legal system has trouble protecting individuals - it's overwhelmed with bad apples. So what do we do about them?

I think it starts with converting those individuals who recognize your 'bravery' into beacons of acceptance. Because once they start to stand up for others who 'break rules' and 'think differently' - more individuals will realize they can now be themselves. And pretty soon we're not breaking rules anymore, we're changing them.

That is the response I give anyone who ever has any challenge or experience to share.

Thoughts?
[identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
Via [livejournal.com profile] juliaserano - a petition to remove transvestic fetishism/disorder from DSM V can be found here.
[identity profile] homo-impetus.livejournal.com
http://michiganmessenger.com/33506/paul-scott-targets-transgendered-people-in-race-for-secretary-of-state




ETA: I hope you repost this as widely as you can. I was surprised I had not already seen this up somewhere here.
[identity profile] kylekatz.livejournal.com
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Transgender Equality Lobby Day
Sponsored by the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC)

2 - 5 pm in Nurses Hall at the Massachusetts State House Beacon St.,
Boston - near Park St Station on the Green Line

We must continue to educate our legislators about why this bill is
needed now. We need to continue to be visible and for our family,
friends, and allies to be visible and stand up with us. We had 300
people lobbying last April, lets double that number. Even if you
legislator is a co-sponsor come in and help others to lobby.
Read more... )
[identity profile] aureantes.livejournal.com
Just in via headline-sampler in my Yahell Mail...

Conservatives shop sex ops ban to GOP

The federal government would be banned from funding sex change operations and other services for transgender individuals if social conservative activists get their way.

 There’s no sponsor yet for an amendment to the health care overhaul – and it may remain in the dustbin of unrealized wedge issues – but culture warriors are shopping the proposal to Republican senators.  (Full article at Politico.com)


Obviously, it can't just be assumed that healthcare reform is going to be automatically inclusive of everyone who's heretofore been marginalized by the system -- political/rhetorical pressure needs to be applied by us, because it's imminently being applied against us, on the same "social values" grounds as the pressure already being exerted to ban any governmental funding of abortions via public healthcare option (I recall the topic coming up earlier here, but it wasn't necessarily seen as related to trans issues then, even though they are naturally lumped together by social conservatives).   Politicians need a good kick in the arse from their trans constituents and everyone else who cares about actual social equality, before this evasion has any chance to get slipped in and undermine any real healthcare reform. 
 

ext_8007: Drinking tea (Default)
[identity profile] auntysarah.livejournal.com
Last May, a few of us were involved in protesting outside a performance by the musician, "Bitch", as part of the "Queer up North" event in Manchester. My account of the event can be read here. To give a summary, Bitch is someone who performs at the Michigan Women's Music Festival, which gained infamy for excluding trans women (sometimes by force), and which has become something of a focal point for the fight against transphobia and trans misogyny within the women's and queer movements. Bitch hasn't merely performed there, but has been a vocal advocate of trans exclusion, and has categorised moves to include trans women in women's events as "making men comfortable and satisfying men".

As we've come to expect from an LGB community which makes a habit of turning a blind eye towards transphobia within its own ranks, the reaction of Queer up North to those objecting to them furthering the artistic career of transphobic performers could, I feel, reasonably be summed up as "yeah, whatever". As talking to them produced, at best, complete indifference, a ew of went and held a little street protest, during which the artistic director himself came to talk to us, apparently upset that we were spoiling his shiny event. I think he demonstrated quite a lot of cluelessness at the time, by being a cis male trying to explain that a bunch of trans people were mistaken to see transphobia where there clearly was none, and a bunch of women were wrong to see misogyny where there was none.

Fast forward thirteen months, and we're now presented with this petulant bit of whining from Queer up North's IT person, Alan Fleming, which contains the following gems:

Last year, several people in the Manchester transgendered community gave us grief because one of our artists had previously performed in a venue that does not allow transgendered people access. We had protests, we had all sorts of stuff going on.

That’s fine. I might not agree, but I respect completely the fact that there are different viewpoints here, and that public protest is a legitimate way of expressing opinion.


Quite apart from the use of "transgendered community", which suggests to me like a group of people who might have survived some unpleasant accident involving a veterinary surgery, and formed a support group to deal with their trauma (does he refer to those of us who practice the sapphic arts as the "catted and fisted community", I wonder?), it's notable that his view seems not to changed one iota - this wasn't about festival supposedly for the whole queer community rubbing the collective nose of one of its constituent parts in the dirt - it was merely about "different viewpoints". I think it's notable, however, that there were no overt homophobes invited to perform, in order to foster more "legitimate ways of expressing opinion".

But he goes on:

However, forward to this year. QuN had two transgendered artists in leading slots. It had Joanne Meyerowitz, one of the most eminent academics working in the field of transgender studies, lecturing on “A different history of gender.”

And what feedback do we hear from the transgender community this year? Nothing. Not a word.

This leads to an interesting question. Why?


That's right - he seems to be upset that the trans community is not embracing Queer up North with open arms and throwing a public celebration because after making a complete mess of things last year, and then compounding it by being condescending and indifferent, they've apparently manaed to do a bit better this year.

I feel kinda bad about this; I for one, would have been only to happy to proclaim and celebrate their hard work, if only I'd known about it. I must confess my guilt here - I hadn't realised the sheer effort and planning needed to invite fewer bigots to their party this year. Perhaps Alan can forgive this little indiscretion though. As he says himself:

I think it’s because the transgender community in Manchester (at least) is politically immature.


As such political lightweights, I don't think it's entirely fair of Queer up North's IT person to expect us to grasp the complexities of making sure that the people they're thinking of inviting are actually broadly supportive of LGBT rights. I mean, we're obviously the sort of naive and inexperienced people who expect to be able to be able to find this sort of thing out using Google, or something. We simply fail to appreciate the months of careful preparation which must have gone into avoiding inviting, say, Fred Phelps to speak at this year's Queer up North festival.

Alan further drives home his point:

To my mind, a politically mature community gives credit where it’s due. It engages with friends and enemies..


I'll close with two thoughts:

Firstly, I realise this may not seem so sincere after being prompted, but thanks for inviting fewer bigots this year. It's really appreciated, and I mean that.

Secondly, if one is to appoint oneself as the arbiter of "political maturity", perhaps it might be productive to avoid making Freudian slip type gaffes implying that Queer up North sees itself as an "enemy" of trans people, because, Alan, it kinda ruins your point a bit.
[identity profile] desiarcy.livejournal.com

Unfortunately, Barney Frank spoke for a lot of people when he made this statement after the ENDA debacle of 2007:

Being in the legislative minority is easy – pulling together to block bad things does not require a lot of agonizing over tough decisions. Being in the majority is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, we have the ability to move forward in a positive way on important public policy goals. Detracting from that is the fact that it is never possible for us at any given time to get everything that we would like, and so we have to make difficult choices.

It's an incredibly seductive argument because it sounds so reasonable. Now that the good guys are in charge, we have to keep our priorities straight. We have to step back from our principles and be ruthlessly practical about making sure we achieve the most good for the most people. It's for the Greater Good, you see -- nothing personal! And we solemnly promise that we'll come back and scrape what's left of everyone else off the sidewalk once we get to the Promised Land. Really, we will.

The thing is, no matter how much people "really mean it" when they promise to come back, things change when you no longer have skin in the game. Suddenly, you have other important things to worry about too. Surely it's not too much to ask that they wait a little longer while we take care of this, that, and the other? It's not as if we're really abandoning them -- we're just asking them to hold out a little longer so that we can do it properly. We're coming. Really, we are.

Read more... )
[identity profile] phoenixvtam.livejournal.com
"Getting the truth in front of the American public is no small undertaking. Extremist groups are not only attacking equal rights we've already won – they are raising millions to shut down progress on victories yet to come.

Backed by supporters like you, here's how we're making a stand:

* In Maine, preparing to defend marriage equality at the ballot – sure to be a major fight;
* In California, rolling out a massive initiative to organize clergy and religious communities in support of marriage equality;
* In New Hampshire, building grassroots pressure behind the marriage bill now making its way to the governor's desk;
* In New York, working with state groups to organize support for a marriage bill scheduled for a vote in the state Assembly today;
* In Iowa, ensuring elected leaders continue standing strong against the radical right's relentless campaign to overturn the recent court ruling;
* In Connecticut and Vermont, ensuring that marriage equality is protected forever.

Every single one of these efforts is being threatened. The truth is on our side, but we need YOUR support to broadcast it, talk face-to-face with Americans, and win hearts and minds."


One will note the total absence of any transgender rights whatsoever.
[identity profile] gendercrash.livejournal.com
I posted this as a response to NH not passing trans rights, but I would like more people to see this...
Gunner

Transgender issues will never be a priority for LGB(t) groups. Whether that is achieving laws, changing policies, or advocating for resources. I am not just saying this because I am part of MTPC, but if we want our community to be equal then we need to do the work. LGB(t) can support this, but we need to be steering that ship and not waiting for LGB(t) groups throw us a bone.

There is more to equality/rights/liberation then just passing non-discrimination laws. I think California is a good example - even though they have non-discrimination laws many trans people are still experiencing employment/poverty issues, so they next step is services, job fairs, education etc... and that is what Transgender Law Center does and this is and will be the types of stuff MTPC will do before and after a law passes.

We need our transgender organizations to advocate for us... we cannot wait for HRC, NGLTF, or MassEquality or any other state equality group to do it for us. We need to do it ourselves which means we need to fund our trans organizations, we need to volunteer, and we need to show up.

The other issues with NH was that not that many trans people showed up for the hearings on the bill, not that many trans people made phone calls to their legislators, not that many trans people got their friends to call.

We can be mad at larger orgs for not pushing as hard as they should have and for putting marriage first, but we also need to hold ourselves accountable when we don't do our own heavy lifting. And yes those larger LGB(t) orgs did put all their money and resources to marriage in NH. We need to do they same - we need to put our resource into our own movement.

If you have a job, then start donating (if you don't already) to a transgender specific advocacy group in your area and/or NCTE - monthly, $5 a month does make a difference when we have several people doing that. If you can do more then do that. I give to several transgender specific orgs, some monthly, others once a year. Lets get more transgender people hired to work for trans rights full time - it makes a huge difference to have trans people at the table advocating for rights and resources. We are the experts on our lives... we are not some LGB(t) group.

If you don't have money then donate your time and show and do something...

I know I sound like a broken record, but after doing this for over ten years and the reality is no one and I mean no one is going to fight as hard for our rights, for resources for our community then we are, trans people.

LGB people don't get us and I don't think they ever will...(and I also identify as being queer) yes they can be our ally, but our issues will never ever and I mean never be their priority. We as the larger trans community need to stop thinking that someday they will. The LGB(t) orgs are not going to save us. As long we have no power or influence in their organizations, meaning on boards and big donors, trans issues and the needs of the trans community will never be at the top of the list. There is no incentive for that. Our needs will always be pushed to the bottom.

So yes be mad at HRC or NGLTF or your state marriage group or equality group, but do something more with that anger...

We need to be our own movement, we need to make our allies and not just with LGB groups, we need to fund our own organizations, and push for our own rights.

We can do this, I know we can...
[identity profile] phoenixvtam.livejournal.com

Okay, let's review what happened.

The Human Rights Campaign, an organization with a history of both directly and indirectly working against trans rights in order to secure gay rights, secured the passage of H.B. 436 by arranging for H.B. 415 to be unanimously declared Inexpedient to Legislate. That means H.B. 415 is not just "dead" but cannot be brought back until a new legislature is elected. Had the HRC had not intervened, it is likely that both H.B. 436 and H.B. 415 would have passed, albiet by very narrow margins. But just as with ENDA two years ago, HRC felt that it was acceptable to guarantee the failure of transgender rights in order to increase the probability of gay rights.

What makes this especially awful is that 415 was a matter of life and death for transgender citizens, whereas 436 was little more than a "vanity upgrade" for gays since they already benefited from one of the broadest same-sex civil union laws in the world. While I do in fact agree that civil unions are inherently unequal and that gays have a right to marriage, it is absolutely outrageous to sacrifice rights which are absolutely crucial for the survival of the transgender community in order to secure distinctly non-critical rights for the gay community. Gays have no legitimate right to demand that same-sex marriage be prioritized over basic transgender rights, especially in cases where civil unions already provide them with all of the legal benefits of marriage.

Let me make this very clear. If HRC had not been involved, I would have supported 436 whether or not 415 passed. The reason I now oppose 436 and want it to be vetoed is not that gay rights passed and trans rights didn't, but that HRC has once again committed "treasonne most foule" by stabbing the transgender community in the back. We have not only the right but the responsibility to retaliate, because if we do not then we are sending a clear message that this is acceptable behavior.

Many gays and gay allies have argued that it is unfair for transgender citizens to oppose same-sex marriage regardless of the "unfortunate" circumstances, because it penalizes gays and lesbians who had nothing to do with HRC's treachery. This is an argument based on pure selfishness and not inconsiderable internalized transphobia, and as such really does not deserve a civil response. But I will forbear.

The current situation with H.B. 436 is analogous to cases in which a third party has purchased stolen goods. Even though the third party is innocent of the crime of theft, he or she has no legitimate title to those goods. It does not matter how much the third party paid for them or how much the third party needs them, they must be returned to the rightful owner. Possession of stolen goods is, in fact, a federal offence; anyone who knowingly possesses stolen goods is considered an accomplice to the original theft, and anyone who unknowingly possesses stolen goods is legally required to return them once notified by the police.

The message we need to be sending is this: You have no right to H.B. 436, because it was passed by stealing H.B. 415 from the transgender community. This is entirely HRC's fault, and you cannot blame transgender citizens for exercising the legal and moral right to defend themselves against this.

[identity profile] elizabeth1010.livejournal.com
I just saw the latest posting of a recent ruling by the New Hampshire legislature on bathrooms. Though it should be passed on here. Worth reading, and really really pissed me off.

http://www.southernvoice.com/2009/4-3/news/national/9930.cfm

and if you really want to be angry, read the following response to the proposal of the article:

http://catholicism.org/new-hampshire-alert-transgender-rights-and-the-bathroom-bill.html
[identity profile] danaelaurm.livejournal.com
This correspondance was between Anne Vitale, PhD, and a friend, who is currently completing a Bachelor's degree in Psychology.

Anne Vitale is a trans psychologist who is relatively known for her theory of Gender Expression Denial Anxiety Disorder (a long name for what is essentially dysphoria). She is also a member of WPATH, and a specialist of "crossdressing and other gender identity concerns".

S.D. is a friend who allows me to leak this freely, her words: "knock yourself out."


The correspondence )
[identity profile] phoenixvtam.livejournal.com

I don't feel this one qualifies as "controversial", but I'll perfectly willing to tag it if a mod asks me to.


Despite its high profile, the cause of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights continues to stand out as the one major area of civil rights in which relatively little progress has been made. Fanatical opposition on the part of the religious right and uneasy apathy on the part of much of the liberal left play a major role in this, but I believe the root cause is a deplorable lack of solidarity among the members of the LGBT community.

This was made painfully clear during the ENDA fiasco last year. When passage of a critical federal anti-discrimination law (H.R. 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) appeared to be in jeopardy due to strong conservative opposition, Representative Barney Frank substituted a stripped-down version (H.R. 3685, "ENDA Lite" or "SplENDA") which banned discrimination against gays but permitted discrimination against transexuals. Ignoring the unanimous opposition of a broad coalition of over 150 LGBT advocacy groups, Frank argued that transexuals have no right to hold back gay rights and need to wait -- "maybe in fifty years" -- before seeking legal protection. He also claimed that it was important to allow the House to stand for gay rights alone because forcing the issue might damage the image of the Democratic Party or jeopardize the positions of moderate Democrats in swing states.

All of the arguments which I have heard from both Frank himself and from those who support his "Great ENDA Backstab" can be summed up in three basic lines of thought:

  1. Gay rights should take priority over trans rights because there are more gays than transexuals.
  2. Gay rights should take priority over trans rights because gays are more socially accepted than transexuals are.
  3. Gay rights should take priority over trans rights because transexuals have not been involved in the LGBT movement as long as homosexuals have. A more extreme variation of this argument is that transexuals are unwelcome interlopers who have "hijacked" the gay rights movement.

Whether or not they are honestly offered (I have my doubts, but I am not a neutral party in this matter), all three of these arguments fail to stand up to even the most basic logical and philosophical scrutiny. Let us consider them one at a time:

The first argument is rooted in an oversimplistic application of the principle of maximum utility -- that the most ethical course of action is the one which benefits the greatest number of people. The overlooked point is that this only holds true when benefits to the majority are not achieved through harm to the minority; if it was ethical to harm a minority in order to benefit a majority, things like slavery and gang-rape would be perfectly ethical. In this case, the "gay rights first" argument fails to consider the fact that the passage of gay-only antidiscrimination laws is actively detrimental to transgender rights. It not only provokes backlash which is guaranteed to increase discrimination and violence against transgendered people but also strips existing protection from transgenders by setting a precedent legalizing discrimination against us.

My counterargument that failing to include transgender persons in anti-discrimination legislation effectively endorses discrimination against them may seem far-fetched, but it has in fact already come to pass. Even though it has not yet passed into law (and probably never will, given the lack of Senatorial support), H.R. 3685 has already been accepted by federal courts as proof that Congress never intended to include transgendered persons in existing anti-discrimination laws. The existing case law supporting transgender rights has been thrown out, and discrimination against transgender persons has effectively been legalized except in states which have anti-discrimination laws of their own.

The second argument is based on the same blatant misapplication of the principle of maximum utility. It is basically saying that because gays are more accepted by mainstream socity, the same investment of political capital would create more benefit for gays than it would for transgendered people; hence it is more "profitable" to invest primarily or even exclusively in gay rights. Again, this argument from utility can only be validly applied when you can make one group better off without making any other group worse off. As convenient as it would be, that hidden assumption simply does not hold up in the case of LGBT rights.

The third argument is both fundamentally juvenile ("I was in line first!") and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the history of the LGBT movement. Transgender persons have been part of the civil rights movement since its birth at Stonewall; indeed, it was transgender persons rather than gays per se who bore the brunt of the police brutality at Stonewall. The accusation that transexuals are "Johnny-come-lately" interlopers only seems valid because the involvement of transexuals in the movement is often made invisible; transgender persons who are "passable" are assumed to be cisgender, and transgender persons who are not passable are assumed to be genderqueer. These misconceptions minimize the visibility of transexuals within the movement; it's not that we're not there, but that people don't recognize us.

As much as I generally dislike conspiracy theories, I am forced to conclude that the LGBT movement's willingness to throw transgender people overboard at the slightest hint of trouble is based on a combination of selfish greed and personal transphobia rather than any sort of logic. It is unlikely that such hypocritical sentiments are pervasive among lesbians and gays -- only among the "nobility" of highly influential upper class heteronormative gay white males who control the major LGBT advocacy groups through their network of political and social connections. These already tremendously privileged few apparently feel entitled to make their personal welfare the sole objective of the entire LGBT movement.

[identity profile] christinemax.livejournal.com
I have an ACLU contact regionally and she has been helping me with some things as I work on a project and she sent me a bunch of pamphlets. They are the ACLU's Trangender People and the Law Pamphlet. These are very informative and you can find them at www.aclu.org/lgbt I was also looking around their site and they had some some other stuff that made me think that the ACLU has a better position on Transgender issues than HRC does. I'm not sure if this is true or not, does anyone know anything about this? But I think I read something about linking transgender issues to gay issues, although I can't find it now.

Meredith Christine

Profile

trans: (Default)
Trans Community

March 2018

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags