As some of you know, I’ve been involved in HIV prevention on the local and national level for a few years now. Today I’m in Atlanta, GA for a UCHAPS meeting and… I’m pissed. I’ve watched as cold-hearted tea bagging idiots have systematically sought to pay for corporate tax breaks with the blood of our citizenry:

Today I got to hear how Georgia has 2,000 people waiting to get on ADAP – the program that pays for HIV medications. Florida reported that they have 3,000 people waiting. While some of these jurisdictions have been able to get some temporary private funding to help continue their HIV drug assistance programs, these stop-gap measures are very temporary. Get this straight: without their medications, each one of these lives will be lost. In Florida, their Republican governor got a new law passed through their tea-bag controlled legislator that any grant of more than 50K must be personally approved by the his highness, The Governor.  You know what happened when the Florida jurisdiction asked for Federal money to pay for HIV services? The Republican governor vetoed applying for the Federal grant money.

In Texas, the Republicans tried to take HIV medication away from 14,000 people. They literally tied to kill 14,000 people by defunding the Texas HIV medication program. Rick Perry recently organized a political stunt to kick off his presidential run called “The Response.” He did this hand-in-hand with the American Family Association, an organization that calls for the imprisonment of GLBT people who are HIV+.

WAKE THE FUCK UP!

It was a hard fight, but Texas Democrats were able to lead the government in partially funding the Texas ADAP program. This means that if we continue to allow the cancer that is the tea party to spread, people I know will die because the program that keeps them alive will run out of funding.

How long will you sit on the sidelines? The people who feel okay with murdering and/or locking up our community members are the same people who, on a daily basis, attempt to maximize the suffering within the GLBT community.

We now live in an America where we will allow mega-corporations like Bank of America to not pay one buck in taxes and bestow upon them personhood but it’s okay to kill 1000s of citizens to pay for those Bush-era tax loopholes. This madness must stop. The Tea Party is just the newest incarnation of the Christian right wing and they need to be stopped!

Register to vote and vote damn it! Get 5 people you know to register to vote and get them to vote as well. The AIDS epidemic broke the back of the queer community in the 80s and we’re looking at reliving that nightmare soon if things don’t change. Is this the America you want to create with your indifference and silence?

While Perry and his 3 ring circus of anti-queer hate is gearing up to congratulate each other for passing the buck to Yahweh Elohim in what he’s calling “The Response”, the GLBT community in Houston came together to remember those we have lost to hate and to dedicate a small garden as a lasting place of reflection. This effort was sparked to life as a reaction to a recent murder that took place in Houston. A young gay man named Aaron Scheerhoorn had been stabbed as was running from his attacker. Upon seeing a nightclub, he ran to the club’s entrance seeking help. The doorman turned him away… whereupon Aaron’s attacker pushed him down and in front of dozens of onlookers, commenced to stabbing Aaron over and over again… the onlookers did absolutely nothing to stop the attack and allowed the murderer to escape without hindrance.

This place of remembrance is significant to me because 1/3 of those remembered that night were transgender. I’ve known more than one trans person who fell victim to hated. It helps me knowing that others will at least remember their names. I hope is place of remembrance might inspire others to consider the price the innocent pays for our culture’s need to cling to hate.

I will be forever grateful to the organizers of this event. I knew some of these victims… It was so incredibly moving to hear folks explicitly acknowledge their suffering. While Garnet Coleman was speaking, I was moved to tears.

On top of Myra, I also knew Kendrick “Cinnamon” Perry. She had come to our organization seeking shelter because no emergency homeless shelter would take a transwoman. Unfortunately, our economy had taken a hit after 9/11 and the program we had to house these folks had to close due to lack of funding. The night the Board was meeting at the GLBT Center to officially end this housing program, grabbed my hand and Cinnamon asked me for shelter… and I had to tell her that we were unable to take her because the program had closed it’s doors. It was just 2 weeks later that, while walking down Lovett Blvd, someone drove by and shot her in the head.

She would have lived had she been able to have access to shelter. Had a foundation been willing to fund a transgender shelter program at the time or if their had been more support, the shelter would have been open for her. I remember that during the days, we would be down at the shelter and on the weekends, we were in the bars collecting change to keep the program going. For years I blamed myself. Her murder affected me in a way that felt just like a punch to the solar plexus. I felt utterly defeated when her life was cut short.

While I certainly know that hate – from the murder itself to the bigotry that wouldn’t allow her access to a shelter – was to blame for her death, it certainly haunts me to this day still.

This was the first ceremony I’ve attended in which she was publicly remembered. It was profoundly moving to me. Thank you… to each and every one of the organizers of this event… Thank you.

As some of you know, Brenda Thomas and I began working with Covenant House to get them to house trans youth back in 2000. Sadly, Brenda passed on in 2006 without seeing her dream of having a safe place for homeless trans youth to get help come to fruition. However, neither I nor the community gave up. We continued to fight for years and as we fought I continued to see young lives destroyed as Covenant House would toss out one trans person after another after another after another.

However, things have changed

Today was the most recent meeting between Covenant House and Transgender Community representatives. We met to evaluate the progress Covenant House has made over the past 5 months and I am impressed!

L – R: Josephine Tittsworth (TG Community) Andrea Moore (CH Board), Mary Peppeard (CH Staff), Jolanda Jones (City of Houston Council Member), Chris Kerr (MCC), Jack Valinski (Jones Staff). I took the photo.

Here are just a few changes that have been made:

• Covenant House is NO LONGER a faith-based organization
• Trans youth are housed according to their gender identity
• A trans youth is referred to by their preferred name using preferred pronouns
• Anti-crossdressing policy has been replaced with GLBT supportive policy  
• All staff have received policy trainings 
• Covenant House now has an official Safe Zone and staff wear pins identifying themselves as GLBT allies
• A clear grievance procedure is in place and the outcomes of these grievances are reviewed by us (above pic)
• GLBT kids are allowed to attend HATCH
• Staff have undergone GLBT cultural competency training
• GLBT supportive signage is now posted throughout the Covenant House campus
• ALL youth are informed that this is a safe place for GLBT youth and that GLBT harassment is not tolerated
• There’s now ongoing educational programs for all shelter residents with an emphasis on GLBT bullying issues

Here’s an excerpt of the new Nondiscrimination Policy:

Covenant House Texas values the complexity and diversity of the world in which we live and seeks to be a community that recognizes the dignity and inherent worth of every person. Covenant House Texas is committed to the principles of fairness and respect for all and believes that a policy embodying these principles fosters a community that favors the free and open exchange of ideas and provides its residents and staff with the best environment for study, work and fellowship. Accordingly, no employee, volunteer or individual sheltered at Covenant House Texas shall willfully harass, discriminate against, or interfere with the activities or legitimate rights of any person in a way that deprives that person of due consideration as an individual.

In compliance with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal, state and local equal opportunity laws, and in accordance with our values, Covenant House Texas will not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender expression in any phase of its admissions, programs or activities.

And do you know what’s best about all of this? This is about to become national policy for all Covenant Houses throughout America. Yes, that’s right. After 11 years of fighting, the Houston transgender community has not only won equality for Houston GLBT youth, we’ve won equality for GLBT homeless youth seeking help at Covenant House locations throughout our nation. The national Covenant House leadership will attend our next meeting scheduled for November.

OutSmart Magazine published the following story about this victory this month:

For the many transgender youth who become runaways, the streets of Montrose may seem to offer a place of freedom and refuge. But the dark side of freedom is usually a harsh life of poverty and homelessness. While homeless shelters such as Covenant House Texas (CTH), on Lovett Blvd. near Westheimer, offer hope to straight runaways, transgender youth have often faced bigotry and harassment at the hands of insensitive staff members, and some end up returning to the streets.

Thanks to a series of recent meetings between the leadership at Covenant House and LGBT advocates, youth from across the LGBT spectrum now have a safe place to go. The result of those meetings is a new Covenant House policy requiring sensitivity training for its staff, as well as recognizing the preferred gender expression of any clients who request it.

“Our goal is for all members of the CTH community—staff, volunteers, and residents—to treat one another with mutual respect, free of any form of harassment,” said Andrea Moore, a member of the Covenant House board of directors and chair of their human resources committee. “I don’t know who can take issue with that.”

For some advocates, trying to get Covenant House to change its policy of identifying its transgender clients according to the gender shown on birth certificates, and to stop ignoring complaints of bullying and discrimination, seemed like a Sisyphean feat. Previous reform efforts inevitably ended with the center reneging on promises to change its policies.

“Throughout the years, I’ve watched one young life after another destroyed because Covenant House refused to work with the homeless transgender youth population,” said transgender advocate Cristan Williams in an email to supporters.

Williams and several community members have lobbied for change for more than ten years, and she believes serious change did not occur until Houston city councilmember Jolanda Jones became involved in the issue.

Covenant House’s reticence to embrace change may be partly because of its religious affiliation. It was founded in New York in the late 1960s by a Franciscan priest as a faith-based program for runaways and the city’s poor; it eventually became a nonprofit organization with many centers throughout the country.

Since the leaders who followed its founder were Catholic nuns, its service has always included a religious component. With little official acceptance of gay people coming from the Catholic Church, Covenant House has not been encouraged to focus on LGBT-specific programs and training.

Houston activist Jack Valenski said the specific issues facing gay and transgender runaways who entered the program had never been addressed before the recent meetings.

“This [situation] had been a thorn in the side of the community for many, many years,” he said. “[Covenant House] came into the community where there’s a big gay presence and they’ve been here for many years, but they did not offer anything to the [LGBT] community. That has changed a bit over the years, but still the holdover was their treatment of transgender kids.”

Since the series of meetings organized over the years by LGBT advocates and their supporters didn’t appear to resolve the issue, the row drew the attention of councilmember Jolanda Jones because Covenant House receives some funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

“One of the hooks on this thing was that [Covenant House claimed] their money came from private donations so they can do what they want, but this is not true,” said Valenski, who works for Jones. “Some of their money has been coming from HUD.”

“Organizations that accept HUD money must agree to avoid discriminating against a variety of groups that includes transgender people, and Jones learned that the nonprofit was violating federal law by being insensitive to the needs of its transgender clients.”

Jones, who chairs the city’s housing committee, attended several meetings, including the pivotal December and February meetings.

Ronda Robinson, the executive director of Covenant House, initially met with a group including Chris Kerr from the Montrose Counseling Center and Josephine Tittsworth, a transgender advocate. Robinson then sent board member Andrea Moore to the final meetings as the Covenant House representative.

“The December meeting was quite intense, to say the least,” Williams said. “I felt that [Moore] was somewhat taken aback with the level of frustration we expressed. While she initially toed the Covenant House line about there not being a problem at Covenant House, and that no policy changes were necessary, she began to change her tune around the second hour of the meeting.”

Moore said in an email that she had researched the issues faced by LGBT people in shelters before meeting with the group.

“While I didn’t feel that CHT should have a GLBT policy per se, the discussions clarified in my mind that CHT should enact a harassment and nondiscrimination policy with a specific code of conduct and a means of enforcing it,” she said. “My impression hasn’t changed. I just recognized that there was more that CHT could do to make GLBT clients feel safe. And, there was also more it could do to teach tolerance and mutual respect.”

At the February meeting, Moore reported that the Covenant House board of directors approved the inclusion of LGBT-specific protections its policy, and provided documentation affirming the change. The policy includes two key phrases: “Covenant House Texas values the complexity and diversity of the world in which we live and seeks to be a community that recognizes the dignity and inherent worth of every person. Covenant House Texas will not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender expression in any phase of its admissions, programs or activities.”

“I am incredibly happy to be at the end of a decade-long battle with Covenant House,” Williams said. “It still feels wonderfully strange to think that homeless trans youth have a place to be. I can’t express how sweet this victory is for me, or how meaningful it is to our homeless youth.”

A followup meeting is scheduled for June 1, in which the policy and its changes will be reviewed and discussed with the group. The Transgender Center and MCC will receive feedback from LGBT youth, and will help them file complaints if necessary.

Williams said the changes have opened the doors to a better relationship between Covenant House and the LGBT community.

“While it took more than a decade, Covenant House should be congratulated for doing the right thing,” Williams said, adding that she will be reworking her Covenant House watchdog website, covhou.com, to be a resource for LGBT youth at the center.

“As Covenant House continues forward as a safe place for our homeless youth to seek shelter,” Williams added, “I intend on becoming a huge Covenant House supporter.”

http://outsmartmagazine.com/2011/06/covenant-house-opens-up-to-transgender-youth-gender-preference-now-recognized-by-center/comment-page-1/#comment-569

For a detailed history of the struggle, click here.

(What’s that I hear? It sounds like a right-winger gnashing their teeth!)

Also, as a side-note, I thought it was fairly cool that both Josephine and I rolled up to the meeting today on our Harley Road Kings

In my post about the logical fallacies a Republican judge had to turn a blind eye in order to come to the untenable conclusion that Nikki Araguz is a dude, I caught some heat because, as one commenter put it:

For the record, ‘Republicans’ are no more monolithic than are gays. Implying that a moronic, self-identifying Republican somehow represents all Republicans is equally moronic. I’d thank author to examine her obvious prejudice as well as her practical hypocrisy.

Here’s the deal… and this is only my personal opinion… If you choose to support the Republican Party, you’re choosing to harm the GLBT community. Don’t roll you’re eyes, allow me to elucidate…

Here’s My Premise: Deal With It

So, I know you’ve got a bag of rebuttals in your pocket and you’re ready to throw them at me. However, before you do so, please respond to my actual premise. To be clear, here’s my my simple 2-point argument:

1. Point 1: The Republican party is an anti-GLBT organization. To argue against point #1, you will need to cite factual evidence that supports that in the face of their stated aims and goals, that they are really a pro-GLBT organization. If you can’t do that, your argument is fallacious.
2. Point 2: There is an inherent ethical problem (hypocrisy) with claiming to be pro-GLBT civil rights while simultaneously supporting anti-GLBT outcomes that are demonstrably harmful to the lives of GLBT people. To argue against this, you will need to provide a credible argument that demonstrates how supporting our nation’s largest and most powerful anti-GLBT organization is consistent with supporting GLBT civil rights. If you’re arguing point #2 and cannot do this, your argument is fallacious

Basically, I offer up nothing more than this simple if-then logic: If you are pro-GLBT civil rights and support anti-GLBT outcomes, then your actions are hypocritical.

If you’re offering  rebuttal that doesn’t challenge at lest one of these 2 points, it’s probably a fallacious argument.

Fallacious Arguments

I can already hear the fallacious arguments coming:

• “Okay, so maybe state platform(s) is/are a bit extreme. However, you can’t claim that ALL Republicans are like this!”
• “Democrats are no better! They did XYZ!”
• “I know X number of Republicans who disagree with the Republican Party on this issue!”
• “I’m not a single-issue voter. I vote for what’s best for my country, not what’s best for myself!”
• “Common now! XYZ Republican had a gay person working for them!”

Each and every of the above arguments are fallacious responses to my premise. I’ll go into why they’re fallacious in a bit, but I feel that I need to make my argument clear: If you do not address at least one of the above 2 points in your reply, you’ve probably created a strawman argument.

Supporting Evidence for Point 1: Republican Party is an Anti-GLBT Org

The Republican Party is the largest group in the nation actively trying to stand in the way of GLBT civil rights. In other words, the Republican Party is the largest anti-GLBT organization in the nation. You think that’s hyperbole? Here’s what the Texas Republican Party has to say about GLBT people:

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional value.

http://tinyurl.com/233vhl7

This is only the tip of this bigoted iceberg. They go on to describe how they intend to limit the GLBT community’s access to everything from healthcare to parenting. By definition, a group espousing these goals is an anti-GLBT organization. I don’t care what clever rational you can come up with, the bottom line is that helping our nation’s largest anti-GLBT organization increase it’s ability to maximize suffering within the GLBT community is bad.

Think that’s just a Texas thing? Here’s what Iowa Republicans want:

We support an amendment to both the U. S. and Iowa constitutions that states that all marriages should be traditional one natural male and one natural female, omitting transgendered.

- 6.03, Iowa Republican Party Platform

They go on to say…

We call for the repeal of sexual orientation in the Iowa Civil Rights Code and we oppose any other legislation or executive order granting rights, privileges, or status for persons based on sexual orientation.

And for yet another facepalm moment to their platform, they go on to say…

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not to ensure equality.

Yah, yah, yah. I know what you’re going to say. You’ll say that it’s normal for state Republican platforms to be this rabidly anti-GLBT (which somehow means that the Republican Party as a whole isn’t supportive of the goals and aims of state Republican Platforms?). Okay, so here’s what the National Republican platform has to say about GLBT Americans:

To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.

- Page 5, National Republican Platform

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress.  A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states.  Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter.  We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California.

- Page 53, National Republican Platform

Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination.  We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples .

- Page 54, National Republican Platform

Conclusion: Any organization making the above statements is, by definition, an anti-GLBT organization. This particular anti-GLBT organization has more money, more political power and more influence over the daily lives of GLBT Americans than any other ant-GLBT organization in America. Organizations that repress GLBT civil rights effects the quality of life of GLBT people. Therefore, the Republican Party is our nation’s largest, most powerful anti-GLBT organization in American damaging the quality of life for GLBT Americans.

- Excerpt from the largest US trans study ever

Supporting Evidence for Point 2: The Ethical Question of Hypocrisy

Reality Check 1: Apples to Apples

Lets say you are a member of a political organization that supported something you’re in favor of. Lets say that this organization is perceived to be a leading advocate against child rape. We can all agree that child rape is bad. For the sake of argument, lets also say that there was evidence to support the idea that this organization you belong to is somewhat effective in preventing child rape.

Now, lets say that it is proven that this organization that does this wonderful thing unfortunately uses part of the support it gains from you trying to pass laws that will force all women to wear burkas.

Lets say this organization that works to stop child rape claims that trying to force half the population to live in a cloth bag is a matter of religious freedom and that in this place called America, we should tolerate other religious views. Additionally, they claim that not every member of their organization believes that women should be forced to live in cloth bags. This organization even has a few publicly known non-burka wearing women who regularly go on news programs claiming that in America, we have to tolerate differences of opinion and besides… they try to stop child rape.

This hypothetical organization claims to do admirable work. Not ever member of this organization wants to violate the civil rights of a certain class, just the organization itself. They even have a few women advocating on behalf for the organization that is working to oppress all women. In the real world, would any of these points matter to you? In the real world, wouldn’t you choose to support a different organization that works to stop child-rape instead of the one that is actively trying to force all women to live inside cloth bags?

• Would you continue to pay your dues to this organization?
• Would you continue to proudly proclaim your membership?
• Would you debate the merits of keeping such an organization around?
• Would you help this organization get people elected who want to force all women into burkas?

Now, for arguments sake, lets say that the Republican Party really is the party of small government, balanced budgets and low taxes.

Also, for arguments sake, lets say that it’s a fact that this organization does these wonderful things but unfortunately it uses part of the support it gains from you trying to ensure that all GLBT people should be forced to give up their civil rights.

Lets say this organization that works for small government, low taxes and balanced budgets claims that working to destroy the quality of life for GLBT people is a matter of religious freedom and that in this place called America, we are called on to tolerate other religious views other than our own. Additionally, they claim that not every member of their organization believes that the civil rights of queer people should be utterly destroyed. They even have a few GLBT people advocating on behalf for the organization that is working to oppress all GLBT people.  They go on to claim that in America, we have to tolerate differences of opinion and besides… they strive for smaller government, lower taxes and balanced budgets.

• Would you continue to pay your dues to this organization?
• Would you proudly proclaim your membership?
• Would you debate the merits of keeping such an organization around?
• Would you help this organization get people elected who want to oppress all GLBT people?

Did your answers change?

Reality Check 2: The Strawman

I think most of the fallacious arguments I noted in the “Logical Fallacies” section seem to be nothing more than an effort to resolve the ethical question a GLBT-supporter encounters when they also support our nation’s largest, most powerful and most destructive anti-GLBT organization. None of the following are actual answers to this ethical dilemma; they are simply justifications:

• “Okay, so maybe the platform(s) is/are a bit extreme. However, you can’t claim that ALL republicans are like this!”
• “Democrats are no better! They did XYZ!”
• “I know 2 Republicans who disagree with the Republican party on this issue!”
• “I’m not a single-issue voter. I vote for what’s best for my country, not what’s best for myself!”
• “Common now! XYZ Republican had a gay person working for them!”

Not one of these positions deal with the actual ethical question.

None of these arguments change the fact that the Republican Party is the largest, most powerful and most effective anti-GLBT organization in this nation.

Strawman logic is often used when we are doing something we know produces bad outcomes, but justify it with coming up with arguments that, while they do not resolve the ethical question, help us feel better about our actions.

A thief might rob a rich person and justify it by assuming that the rich person was insured or that the thief needed the cash they would get from the stolen item more than the rich person. These justifications do not resolve the ethical question of theft. They exist merely to help the thief live with the outcomes their behavior produced.

If you’re supporting the one organization that is most effective in working around the clock to increase the level of suffering within the GLBT community, in my book, that’s not good.

Between April 9-10, 2011 CNN asked 824 people, “Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?” 51% of the respondents said yes… which is great news! However, 71% of Republicans said no.

Now, would it be correct to say that according to this data, most Republicans surveyed agree with the stated goals and aims of the organization they support? Would it also be correct to state that the minority of Republicans that do not agree with the stated goals and aims of the organization are nonetheless complicit in supporting the stated goals and aims of the organization through their continued support of the organization?

The Last Fig Leaf

The argument of last resort I’ve seen used by a number of people is to claim that they are trying to work within the organization to create positive change.

- From the Log Cabin Republican website, June 17, 2011

- Christ Barron of GOProud supporting Herman “Homosexuality is a sin” Cain

So, lets look at the value of this argument. In doing so, I think it is important to review a number of points:

• Does this resolve the ethical dilemma of hypocrisy?
• How much positive output is created  through one’s involvement in this organization?
• How much negative output is created  through one’s involvement in this organization?

Unlike the strawman logic I touched on above, this “last fig leaf argument” is an attempt to directly address the issue of hypocrisy. I know, you’re probably thinking, “But, how can one be a hypocrite if one is working on behalf of their convictions?” To answer that question, one must look at actual outcome metrics and not any one person’s good intentions.

The foundational falsehood that needs to be addressed with regard to this justification is to recognize and acknowledge that there is a difference between an organization which inadvertently harms GLBT people and an organization that clearly states that one of their main goals is to harm the GLBT people.  When dealing with our nation’s largest, most powerful and most destructive anti-GLBT organization, we are dealing with an organization that exists to ensure that GLBT equality will never become a reality in this nation. This, as their official platform states, is a core mission of the Republican Party. This isn’t an organization that has a couple of bad apples who are homo/transphobic; this organization is a bad apple whose stated goal is maximize homo/transphobic discrimination.

About 30 years ago, a man named Louis Bonsignore – who supported GLBT equality – helped form the Log Cabin Republicans. His goal was to work from the inside to create change. Care to guess what he had to say after 30 years of banging his head against a brick wall?

We have watched with dismay as gay-friendly Republicans have cut deals with the far right to save their own necks at state and national conventions or to curry favor with them for their own “special interests” – usually business or religious zealots. Example: Pete Wilson’s vetoing Assembly Bill 101 in 1991 (a gay- rights bill he openly campaigned for in the 1990 race) to stave off the wrath of Lou Sheldon and the Traditional Values Coalition. Since serving as a field rep for former Governor Bob Ray (R-Iowa) in 1978 until September of this year, when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the gay marriage bill here, I have been a staunch Republican. (Is there any other kind?) Now, I am an unofficial Democrat. I will be an official Democrat after this year’s election when I can safely re-register without jeopardizing my ballot.

- Louis Bonsignore, 2005

An organization will only change a fundamental reason for its existence when its existence is predicated on changing its deliverable accomplishments. At some point, Republicans as a whole will have to get on board with GLBT rights or face extinction. The Republican Party WILL NOT change their core value (being anti-GLBT) regardless of what any well-intentioned person does “on the inside”. The Republican Party will only change because they value their continued existence more than they value their desire to produce harmful outcomes for the American GLBT population.

If you look at the above dataset, you will notice that Republican support of marriage equality has grown from 14% in 2008 to 25% in 2010. One might argue that this is proof positive that working from the inside works… And they’d be right if it wasn’t for the fact that support for marriage equality grew across the board between 2008 to 2010. Why?

Because the general population is beginning to view GLBT equality in the same way we now view racial equality.

The above graph plots out the Republican, Democratic and Independent support of marriage equality from the above dataset. In this graph, there are 4 distinct trends for the Republicans. Note that with only one exception, Republican support waxes and wanes with cultural forces and not due to any well-intentioned people working from the inside.

In 75% percent of the entire sample, Republican support coincides with Democratic and Independent support. Only during the June 2008 – February 09 period does Republican support for equality break with cultural support. Why is that? Could it be that  between 6/08 and 2/09 there was a mass exodus of GLBT-supportive people within the Republican community (who, then presumably returned in March of 09)? Or, could it have been…

2008 newspaper headline

- The Christian Post; Fri, Aug. 22, 2008

… the 2008 Presidential Election? The Republican Presidential candidate backed Prop 8. Personally, I think it is far more likely that the identity politics of rounding the wagons around a Presidential candidate – no matter what – was a more likely source for the dip in Republican support for GLBT equality than a sudden lack of people who claim to support GLBT equality.

As far as I can tell from the evidence, I can find no statistically significant impact GLBT-supportive Republicans have had in halting the Republican Party in carrying out their explicitly anti-GLBT equality goals. As I said above, the more the non-Republican population views anti-GLBT outcomes as being bad, the more Republicans will be put into a position of being required to get on board with GLBT equality or face extinction as an organization. The demonstrably successful pressure to support GLBT equality comes from our culture’s demand for GLBT equality and not from some well-intentioned people working from the inside. Until the day comes that the vast majority of the non-Republican population views being anti-GLBT exactly like being racist, the Republican Party will continue to be anti-GLBT.

One need only Google “Republican Homosexuality” to see what 30 years of GLBT-supportive people supporting the nation’s largest anti-GLBT organization has produced:

While Republicans are still fretting over GLBT equality, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and most Independents support GLBT civil rights. If the only reason you support the Republican Party is because you value small government, low taxes and balanced budgets, why not support the Libertarian Party? When you have other conservative options open to you that support your goals and are also GLBT-supportive, what reason do you have in your continued support of anti-GLBT outcomes?

At what point do the cons outweigh any dubious justifications? At what point does one decide that harming the people they claim to care for become a more important issue than the perceived payoff (real or imagined) of being part of an anti-GLBT organization?

Regardless of the justification, it is hypocritical to support anti-GLBT outcomes if one claims to be pro-GLBT equality. The idea of working from the inside to change what is fundamental to the Republican Party has been field tested and found to be ineffective. After decades of working from the inside, the organization is still our nation’s most destructive anti-GLBT organization. There are conservative alternatives to the Republican Party that do not seek to crush GLBT civil rights and yet, many GLBT-supportive people still choose to continue helping our nations largest anti-GLBT organization harm the lives of GLBT Americans.

The Wrap-Up

The point of this post isn’t meant to berate or alienate Republican-identified people who believe that they support GLBT civil rights. I made this post because there seems to be a disconnect when dealing with the fact that input (Republican support) is linked to output (Republican-sponsored anti-GLBT outcomes). If one’s support of an organization results in real suffering within the community they claim to care about, is it really that unfair for someone else to notice that their walk isn’t matching up with their talk?

I know that some of you will want to grouse over this post. I know that some of you will want to respond and I encourage you to do so. However, please honor your position by dealing with my 2-point argument instead of offering up ad homs, strawmen or various and sundry appeals to authority. If you cannot or will not address my actual premise, I will conclude that you do not have a valid argument.

Lastly, I wanted to share the following video to hit home the fact that there are other conservative political organizations available to conservative GLBT people/supporters other than our nation’s largest anti-GLBT organization:

http://www.youtube.com/v/pBavo8IIVCM

Disclaimer: This blog post represents my current views/opinions and does not necessarily represent the views/opinions of any organization I work with.

I’m so happy about this!

I can’t properly express how important trans history is to me as a transsexual member of the transgender community. Being able to connect to my history in this way is without parallel. I’m so happy that the community’s archive continues to grow and attract support from people throughout the nation!

___________________________________

Transgender Foundation of America (TFA) announces a $1,500 donation to the Transgender Archive by the New York city based organization, Que(e)ry Librarians. In a letter to TFA, the Que(e)ry Librarians write:

Enclosed is our donation of $1,500.00 to your organization. We were able to raise this money through the donation of hundreds of party-goers at our last event: Que(e)ry III: Main Entry!

Que(e)ry’s goals are:

• to provide a safe and fun social space and to encourage community among queer information professionals and their friends;
• to raise financial support and awareness for hidden queer library, archival and/or museum collections;
• to celebrate the contributions of queer people to the cultural record and to the information profession;
• to demystify and dispel stereotypes about libraries and librarians;
• to highlight information policy issues affecting the queer community, such as censorship, discrimination , obscenity or privacy.

Thank you for your cooperation with our party. We are very pleased to give you this donation.

Love, Pride and Libraries!

- Que(e)ry Librarians

Jo Collier, professional archivist and chairperson of the TG Center’s Archive said, “These days everybody’s on about the internet, so it’s possible for funding groups to overlook libraries and archives  as something almost passé. It’s wonderful that there are people like the NY City Library group who understand the importance of being able to physically interact with things that connect you with your past. ”

The Houston transgender historical archive creates an educational opportunity that is absolutely unique. No other collection of transgender history like the Houston Transgender Archive is known to exist anywhere. The collection offers students, community members and supporters a unique opportunity to access centuries of information about the transgender community. The Library and Archive is open to the public every weekday between 1 and 5 PM.

http://www.tgctr.org/2011/06/17/ny-city-librarians-support-the/

June 5

1983 – Harvey Fierstein’s play Torch Song Trilogy won the Tony Award for Best Play of the 1982-83 season.

June 6

1886 – Annie Ryan married Annie Hindle, who gave her name as Charles Hindle, in Grand Rapids Michigan. Gilbert Sarony, a female impersonator, was one of the witnesses.

June 9

1989 – The ashes of pioneer transsexual Christine Jorgensen were scattered off Dana Point by her two nieces and two of her closest friends.

June 11

1998 – Nineteen-year-old Brendan McGarity was arrested for vandalizing rainbow flags which had been displayed in Orlando Florida for GLBT Pride Month. He said he did it because of Rev Pat Robertson’s warnings that God would punish the city with natural disasters for allowing the display of the flags.

June 12

1995 – The Employment Non-Discrimination Act was re-introduced in Congress. HRC demanded that transsexuals not be included in the legislation.

June 14

1961 – Boy George, musician was born

June 20

1923 – Fred G Thompson of Chicago was arrested on suspicion of murder. Until the arrest Thompson had passed as Mrs. Francis Carrick, wife of Frank Carrick. He was found not guilty.

June 23

1882 – Dr. William Hammond delivered a paper to the American Neurological Association on a “disease” which makes males believe themselves to be females. As an example he spoke of Native Americans who lived as the opposite sex.

June 24

1989 – The US Postal Service issued a Pride postmark to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Stonewall riots.

June 27

1969 – Police raided the Stonewall, a bar in Greenwich Village, shortly after midnight for selling liquor without a license. When police began loading GLBT patrons into paddywagons and – according to many sources – Sylvia Rivera, transgender activist and later co-founder of S.T.A.R. (Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries, ca. 1970) began to fight back which began the riot. Police were forced to take shelter inside the bar. The next evening people gathered outside the bar and police, who showed up to prevent a second night of rioting, started a riot.

June 28

1970 – Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, was arrested for blocking the sidewalk following a demonstration in Los Angeles. While in jail a MTF pre-operative transsexual was brutally beaten after being placed in the same cell with male heterosexual prisoners. Perry arranged for her release and went on a hunger strike to convince authorities not to put transsexuals in cells with male heterosexuals.

This is a copy of the note Nikki’s mother sent to the judge today. It sums up a lot of the questionable behavior on the part of Heather Delgado’s side fairly nicely.

To: Honorable Judge Randy M. Clapp

329th Judicial District Court

100 S. Fulton, Suite 200

Wharton, TX 77488

Via email: Cassie Ritter, Court Administrator

cassie@329th.com

Re: Nikki Araguz

Dear Sir:

I am Nikki Araguz’s mother. It is with great distress that we learned FROM A TRUSTED REPORTER IN THE MEDIA about your judgment in the lawsuits against our daughter, Nikki Araguz – on Monday night, BEFORE you officially announced your decision. The Plaintiff’s attorney, FRANK MANN, continued his historical mal-practice of malicious, devious, and vindictive actions by releasing press releases in advance of court proceedings – his obvious motivation was to emotionally hurt Nikki and our family. Again.

Was he permitted to release this information prior to court proceedings on Tuesday? If not, will you, as Judge, find him in Contempt of Court, and sanction him for this abhorrent behavior? Are you aware that Mr. Mann had – while our beloved son-in-law was alive – maliciously released personal and HIPPA information about Nikki and Thomas to the general public that was politically and personally motivated? That Mr. Mann, while hired by Heather Delgado, had conflict of interest, as he had been an attorney for Nikki and Emilio Mata in a bankruptcy proceeding case, therefore had client/attorney knowledge which he used in distributing this harassing and hurtful email last year – intending to cause emotional, financial, psychological, professional and relationship harm to THOMAS and NIKKI. Heather Delgado obtained private, personal documents while seeking more MONEY – Thomas had NO income, as he had just finished 2 years of college, while Nikki paid child support for his two children, and her income supported Thomas and herself.

You never met my husband and I, although we wished we could have been with our daughter every time there was a court hearing. I am a stroke survivor, paralyzed in a wheelchair, diabetic, have seizures, and a colostomy. My husband has had 3 heart attacks, quintuple-bypass surgery last year, mini-strokes since Thomas died, and has COPD on oxygen. We are unable to travel, and I receive home nursing care. THOMAS WAS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF OUR FAMILY, WHO LOVED US AS PARENTS, was always here to help us, and we have suffered immeasurable grief and loss. THOMAS took my husband – his father-in-law – to the hospital on Feb. 1, 2010, the morning of bypass surgery. THOMAS and Nikki were with me in the ER of Methodist Hospital on June 3, 2010, when I had a seizure, and was taken unconscious to the Stroke Center with another traumatic brain injury. THOMAS stayed with me on June 21, 2010 – the day AFTER Father’s Day – with his two boys, our grandsons – while Nikki took her Dad to the doctor. (Yes, I have pictures of that day, of Thomas and the boys on my sofa.)

I do not understand WHY you could render a judgment that would dishonor our son-in-law’s love and commitment for Nikki when he proposed to her, and married her, lived as husband and wife with her until his tragic death. I cannot comprehend how you could conclude that their marriage was “invalid” when CLEARLY Thomas Araguz III knowingly, willingly, and without any reservations or conditions, married Nikki and held out with pride to EVERYONE that she was his wife. His parents had NO questions or issues with Nikki until 1. Frank Mann unethically violated their privacy with his venomous emails, 2. Heather in her attempt to squeeze more child support from Thomas (who had NO earned income) viciously shared Nikki’s HIPPA-protected and private information with Thomas’ family and 3. after Thomas’ death, when I SUSPECT attorneys (Frank Mann?) suggested to Heather Delgado and Simona Longoria that they could BENEFIT from HURTING NIKKI and DISHONORING THOMAS with these “frivolous” lawsuits. Apparently, their “idea” worked – they didn’t care about the children, or Thomas! They only wanted MONEY. And you ruled in their favor. I do not understand that.

Our daughter was born with a birth defect. I am her mother. I cannot control what a doctor erroneously “checked” on a birth certificate form in 1975. Her biological father was in the military, and he received orders to go overseas on the day she was born. We moved from California to Texas so I could be near my parents – Nikki was only a few weeks old. Her brother was 2. Her father was a decorated Army Veteran, when he was killed in a car accident at age 21. That very day, I had called Fort Hood to discuss a birth defect that my baby had – Nikki. She was an infant.

It is beyond my comprehension why you, Sir, would find her marriage to Thomas “invalid” when Nikki had been married to Emilio Mata for ten years, and divorced him in Wharton, Texas – whose court granted that divorce? I ask, Your Honor, because obviously that means Nikki and Emilio’s marriage was legally recognized as “Valid” – in order for there to be a divorce to be granted.

Again, I find it interesting that the plaintiff attorney, FRANK MANN, had represented Nikki and Emilio Mata in their bankruptcy while THEY WERE MARRIED! Mr. Mann took their money for legal fees, never questioned whether Mr. and Mrs. Mata’s MARRIAGE was “valid” – so yet, he represents plaintiff in this lawsuit against our daughter, when she married Thomas, and he died? Besides Mr. Mann’s conflict of interest, and questionable motives, it seems a double-standard on his part to recognize Nikki’s marriage to Emilio Mata, but try to invalidate her marriage to Thomas Araguz. Money… Nikki did not file ANY actions – the plaintiffs brought this devastation on her, and ALL OF US with hurtful allegations and these lawsuits.

So please don’t tell me, Sir, who my child is – or that her marriage to Thomas Araguz III should be found “invalid”. She is and always has been affectionate, beautiful, ambitious, thoughtful, compassionate, proactive, and loving.

Besides the actual marriage ceremony, which should be recognized considering Nikki had already been married and divorced in Texas without legal entities questioning validity, Nikki and Thomas lived together, had joint bank accounts and jointly was known as husband and wife for almost two years, which in any other situation would be “common law” marriage – requiring a divorce if there were a conflict between two individuals in such a relationship.

I wish I could have been in your courtroom, Sir, to express my thoughts. I trust Nikki’s legal counsel will appeal your decision, as our entire family feel Nikki has been treated with disrespect, dehumanized, discriminated against, and used as a punching bag for others’ self-serving motivations.

Kindest Regards,

Sheri Taylor Bockelman

The Christian right-wing has sunk to a new low. I’ve noted before that these groups aren’t above lying or pimping  child rape victims in their never-ending quest to line their pockets. At one time, I thought that Ruth Jacobs was the lowest in a cesspool of nutty BS, but Eugene Delgaudio has surpassed Jacobs in the race to the moral bottom.

Meet Eugene Delgaudio. One can get a taste for the precise nature of Delgaudio’s hubris by merely noting the pretentious name he gave his organization: Public Advocate of the United States. Yes, Delgaudio is actually pompous enough to crown himself the public advocate of the entire United States of America and, with a straight face, ask you for money.

Eugene Delgaudio: Overpaid and Out of Touch

Delgaudio regularly sends me emails begging for cash. One of his most resent e-begs caught my eye:

Lies + Fear = Cash in Delgaudio's Pocket

Delgaudio used the above video in an effort to support the lame notion that homosexuals are invading and taking over public schools. His e-beg focuses the fear his propaganda generates right into his slimy pocketbook. While this alone is repugnant, I’ve not yet exposed just how low this guy is willing to go to get you to put your hard-earned cash into his hand.

The video Delgaudio used seemed a little fishy to me:

The video Delgaudio used in his propaganda. Gays in PUBLIC schools you say?

Since I wasn’t aware that the federal government had begun endorsing faith-based curriculum in public schools, it seemed a bit dubious to me that the above “Quaker Friends School” was, as Delgaudio insinuated, a public school. So, I did a little fact-checking:

Fact: This is NOT a public school

After calling the school’s administration I discovered that the Friends School is not, in fact, a public school. It is, in fact, a private faith-based school. Can you imagine my shock when I discovered the pious Delgaudio had apparently misrepresented the truth in an effort to get you to put your cash into his pocket?

I then I emailed the school to let them know that an apparent snake-oil salesman was using their faith community to line his own pocketbook. Here’s their response:

Quaker Friends School Response

Now the plot thickens. Not only did Delgaudio misrepresent the truth when he used the copyrighted content in an effort to line his own pockets, it appears that the video was being used in violation of US copyright laws. So… I contact the copyright holder and this was their response:

Copyright Owner Response

My ears perked up when I read the statement that the right wing had unlawfully used their film in propaganda before. I thought to myself, “Self, could it be that the right wing commonly uses this GroundSpark documentary to scare people out of their cash?” and found myself answering, “Does the Pope wear Pradas under his mystical muumuu?”

Hate groups love this video!

A quick look at the video stats revealed that hate groups do, in fact, seem to like using this video. After taking some aspirin to deal with the headache I gave myself from repeated facepalms, I decided to turn my attention to the YouTube channel that’s enabling hate groups to line their pockets through fearmongering:

The Kilikimakos YouTube chanel

After taking another aspirin, I decided to dig a bit deeper. Meet the owner of this YouTube Chanel, one Mr. Wenceslao Gonzalez:

Mr. Gonzalez

If Delgaudio is the dealer, Mr. Gonzalez is the pusher. It is Mr. Gonzalez who pushed the propaganda which Delgaudio eagerly used in his crusade to scare you out of your cash.

Now comes the ironic twist to this story of greed, lies and law breaking… It turns out that Mr. Gonzalez was investigated by child services for child abuse:

Child Protective Services Letter

Apparently Mr. Gonzalez attempted to obtain a lawyer to defend him from CPS, but the lawyer declined:

Rejection Letter

I called Delgaudio to inform him of his connection to an alleged child abuser, but sadly, Delgaudio didn’t return my call. I guess he’s too busy raking in the bucks. Meanwhile, it seems that GroundSpark DMCA’d Mr. Gonzalez and the video in question has been forcibly taken down by YouTube:

DMCA'd

Today, January 18, 2011 marks 1 year since Myra Ical was murdered and still no justice! This case, like many trans murders in Houston, is now an unsolved cold case and HPD will NOT give this case another glance unless someone steps forward.

The following paper was presented at the 2010 Rice University SWGS Symposium by Laura Richardson on March 26, 2010. The paper is perhaps the most articulate and  insightful deconstruction of the postmortem violence inflicted upon Myra Ical’s humanity.

For more information about Myra Ical, the media and the community’s response, please click HERE.

Syntactical Distancing in the Case of Myra Ical

Myra Ical, a transgender woman, was murdered on January 18^th of this year and found in a field on the 4300 block of Garrott Street.  In the police report of the incident and in many of the early media responses to the crime, Ical was identified as a man, by her birth name, and with male pronouns.  One report by Houston Press, which has since been revised, even went so far as to claim Ical fooled or tricked police – as if her dead body was telling a lie to law enforcement officials who initially recognized her for what she really was: a woman.  This identification serves as a second type of violence inflicted on Ical – a representational injury that amounted to a disavowal of her person.¹ As with the visibility the transgender community received after the rape and murder of the transgender man Brandon Teena in 1993, the story of Ical’s violent death mobilized Houstonians and stimulated a moment of a higher level of recognition for the transgender community in our city.  Over two hundred people attended Ical’s candlelight vigil, held a week after her death in the same field where her body was found.  Multiple local news stations also attended the memorial, and several concerns of the transgender community, including the guides available to help media outlets write respectfully about transgender individuals and the fact that under the Texas James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, transgender people are not protected, received increased press coverage.  Ical’s death provided an opening through which transgender civil rights and rights of representation were made visible.  Although her violent passing did receive a lot of coverage, there is still much to be said for Ical, the events surrounding her death, and her physical, verbal, and written victimization, for there was a third type of violence inflicted on Myra Ical.  Several reports, including the original police report (which still stands unedited), labeled the field where Ical’s body was found as an “area [] known to have incidents of prostitution, drug use and homeless camps,” failing to mention that the 4300 block of Garrott is just a few blocks from a metro station, multiple bars and pubs, and a 24-hour restaurant.  Several online and televised news reports of the crime also included the information from the police statement about the location where Ical’s body was found in their coverage of her murder, including Houston Press and The Houston Chronicle.  Why did the police and the media insist on “clausing” Ical’s murder with a sentence qualifying that the area where Ical was found was known for illegal acts of prostitution and drug use, as well as for being a site frequented by the homeless?  An interpretation of two sentences of the HPD report of Ical’s murder, “Mr. Ical was found partially clothed in a field and had no identification. The area is known to have incidents of prostitution, drug use and homeless camps,” reveals the ways in which the police and media displaced Ical’s identity as a woman, scandalized her murder, and fell back on discriminatory caricatures of transgender people when representing her body.  Ical was strangled to death and then identified as a man – physical and discursive violences done to her person, but the qualifying sentences of the police report inflict yet a third type of violence on Ical and the transgender community: a dictional and syntactical violence that works to distance readers from the suffering of a woman.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLADD, created a Media Reference Guide, now in its eighth edition, to promote the fair and respectful representation of LGBT stories.  This reference guide is simple, short, and easily accessible online.  In the section that pertains to the representation of transgender people, the guide explains that when reporting about a transgender person, writers and newscasters should always use the person’s chosen name.  Furthermore, the pronouns used to refer to the transgender person should be determined by asking the person which pronouns he/she/ze would prefer.  If the media outlet is unable to ask the transgender person about such pronouns, it should always “use the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s appearance and gender expression” (GLAAD Media Reference Guide 11).    Although the HPD recognized Ical as wearing a “black blouse,” it nevertheless insisted on using male pronouns and privileging Ical’s birth name.  Furthermore, HPD’s claim that Ical “also went by the name of Myra Chanel Ical” is incorrect and misleading: for as many as two decades, Ical identified herself as Myra (Williams).  To claim that she “also went by the name of” is to relegate her status as a woman to the position of a nickname or pseudonym.  Houston Press’s current version of the report of Ical’s murder is titled with Ical’s birth name and then followed by, in parentheses, “(a/k/a Myra Ical),” while part of the URL for author Chris Vogel’s short article about the crime reads: “cross-dresser_beaten_death.”  The abbreviation a/k/a works in a similar way as does “also went by the name of,” but has connotations of criminality, implying a suspect, “who are you really?” status. Additionally, Myra Ical was, in fact, not a cross-dresser, but a transgender woman.  The GLAAD Media Reference Guide defines cross-dressing as: “To occasionally wear clothes traditionally associated with people of the other sex…. ‘Cross-dresser’ should NOT be used to describe someone who has transitioned to live full-time as the other sex or who intends to do so in the future” (GLAAD Media Reference Guide 9).

The diction and syntax of the police report and the two news stories from Houston Press and The Houston Chronicle are working within a framework of identity displacing. I employ “displacing” instead of “displacement” to separate my use of the term from its psychological implications.  By “displacing” I mean, in a simple fashion, removing from “the proper place,” with the negative connotations of “expel[ing] or forc[ing] to flee.”  The substitution of male pronouns for female pronouns, the primary positioning of Ical’s birth name, and the relegation of Ical’s recognized name to a marginal status all serve to separate Ical’s identity as a woman from her person, forcing male-ness onto her body and victimizing her once again.  These are all injuries that occur at the level of diction and syntax, and are displacing mechanisms in the sense that these words and their positioning work to remove Ical’s feminine identity from its rightful place: her body and the recognition of her person.  Police and media representations of Ical’s body created a lack or a gap in their stripping of Ical’s identity by this act of displacing and then attempted to fill the space, cover it over, and suture it with heteronormative discourse.   This space created by displacing was what community responses to Ical’s murder addressed, protesting the removal of her feminine identity and refusing to allow that discursive displacing to continue.

But at the same time as police and media reports were forcing a masculine, heteronormative discourse on Ical’s body, these accounts were also invoking cultural stereotypes of transgender people.  In an interview I conducted with the director of the Transgender Foundation of America (TFA), Cristan Williams, she discussed the past hundred-year history of the representation of transgender individuals.  One of the many incredible services TFA provides for the Houston community is its archival collection of pieces of transgender history, dating back as far as 1750 (TFA Library and Archive Home Page).  Williams noted that in her research through the archive she has discovered that “this sensationalistic, sexualized notion of transgender expression” really only emerged about a hundred years ago, and that

It wasn’t until after the bringing in of entertainment and that image to the public conscious that I began finding the moralistic language or sensationalistic language of transgender expression that has lasted all the way up through Jerry Springer.  Most of the movie posters we have going back years and years… every representation I can think of is used in a sexualized manner…. I think that our cultural reference for transgender people is muddied with a lot of references that go back to entertainment industries that have little or nothing to do with real transgender people. (Williams)

The facts that the police and media reported that Ical was “partially clothed” and found in an “area [ ] known to have incidents of prostitution, drug use and homeless camps” speaks to what Williams identifies as the “cultural reference for transgender people.”  I read over sixty HPD press releases of Houston murders from October 2009 to this very week, and not one of the accounts commented on the state of the clothing victims were wearing.  Additionally, not one of the reports I read made any qualifying statements about the areas in which the murders were committed.  Ical’s body was found in the Midtown neighborhood, which, according to the online database Houston Crime Maps, is not even in the top ten Houston areas for reported criminal activity.  The Montrose neighborhood, which is close to the 4300 block of Garrott, is ranked the tenth highest neighborhood for crime in Houston, but has less than half of the reported criminal activity of the neighborhood that comes in at number one, the Alief area, which is located west of Loop 610, between Highway 59 and West Loop Parkway.  Furthermore, the Montrose area was rated by the American Planning Association in 2009 as one of the best neighborhoods in the U.S.  There is no evidence that Ical was using drugs or involved in prostitution, and she was not homeless.  She cleaned homes and offices for a living and had attended a concert the evening she was murdered.  Given that the area where Ical’s body was found is no more dangerous than many other areas of Houston, and given that Myra was not known to be associated with drugs, prostitution, or homelessness, why are these two sentences in the police report?  Why are these two sentences the ones upon which media outlets initially seized?

The answers to these questions lie partly in the structure of the HPD press release about Ical’s murder.  The report first gives Ical’s birth name, then notes that she “also went by the name of Myra Chanel Ical,” identifying Myra as a transgender woman without explicitly stating the information.  The report then moves to the two sentences with which this paper is primarily concerned: “Mr. Ical was found partially clothed in a field and had no identification.  The area is known to have incidents of prostitution, drug use and homeless camps.”  The progression of the report, then, identifies the victim, calls attention to her status as a transgender woman without directly addressing it, adds that she was partially clothed, and then offers information that serves as “explanations” as to why the crime occurred.  In this way, the development of the report scandalizes Ical’s murder.  The identification of her body as partially clothed, which several news sources inverted to “half naked,”² suggests that Ical was participating in a sexual activity or was sexually assaulted.  Moreover, the development of the report implies that the crime was either understandable (because of the area’s association with criminal activity, which is an exaggerated claim) or caused by the victim (as in Ical was engaging in these activities, which is why she was murdered).  It is almost possible to hear the coordinating conjunction “but” between the last two quoted sentences above: “Mr. Ical was found partially clothed in a field and had no identification, but this area is known to have incidents.”  What is ultimately accomplished by the word choice and sentence structure of the police report and the various media accounts based upon it is the syntactical work of distancing non-transgender people from those who are transgender.  The report seems to be saying that if Myra Ical was a transgender woman who was engaging in prostitution or promiscuity, using drugs, and homeless, the Houston community does not need to mourn her death or worry that it could also be the victim of such violence.  Like the displacing of Ical’s identity as a woman, this distancing works to forge a space between Ical’s experience and the experiences of not only other victims, but the community as a whole.   Again, the outcry from hundreds of Houston residents found fault in this aperture and filled it with the noise of their emails and letters to the media and the noise of their collective voices at Ical’s memorial service, where they shouted, used noise-makers, and blew whistles in protest of both the physical and representational violence inflicted on Ical and the other six unsolved murders of transgender people in Houston since 1999.

The Houston community was able to rally around Ical and protest the displacing and distancing done by police and media reports, but while TFA director Cristan Williams says that Ical’s vigil was “probably the largest single transgender action in Houston,” Williams has seen no increased involvement or attendance at TFA events since Ical’s murder.  “But you have to put that question in context,” she says:

Most of the community members have known people who have been murdered or have friends who have [committed] suicide or have been beaten up themselves or have their own story of victimization to tell.  While the story itself is tragic, it’s not something that is shocking to the community.  To give more context: for most transwomen who get ready to leave the house, for whatever reason, it takes about two hours to get ready.  It’s not to look like a diva, it’s taking time to look passable so that you’re not beaten or harassed….  You’re spending that much time just to get out of your house, month after month, day after day.  That is the reason why most of the clients we work with have symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. [They] know[ ] friends who’ve been beaten, murdered, [and] fear[ ] those things themselves. (Williams)

Increased exposure to violence highlights the intense vulnerability of the transgender community.  That vulnerability is heightened by police and media reports that “ignore industry standards” and perpetuate what Williams identifies as the“boilerplate representation” of transgender people (Williams).  She locates the community’s strong response to Ical’s murder in “the disrespect shown by HPD and local media, [ ] trying to hide who Myra really was in favor of falling back on a tired, old, caricature of transgender people: the freak, the prostitute, the other” (Williams).  “Falling back” on these “tired” representations underscores the displacing and distancing done by the HPD report and media coverage of Ical’s murder.  These spaces created within the body of Myra Ical and between her body and the bodies of Houston residents are openings that must be addressed over and over again in order for the larger community to recognize her suffering and the suffering of transgender people, the majority of whom have been victims of violence as a result of a history of cultural prejudices surrounding the transgender person – a history partly comprised of displacing and distancing, creating spaces that must now be filled with noise. At the end of our interview, Williams concluded her answers to my questions with a poignant call to the best way to address this distancing and make a difference for the transgender community:

Our goal in the event that we held [memorial for Myra] was to inspire that part of yourself that is really, really natural and is in every single person.  That when you see someone suffering, that there’s a natural response to help.  When things like this happen, what we try to do is call attention to that part of each person’s self that innately sees beyond the cultural conditioning to recognize that this person is – that we’re talking about – a human being who suffered, and that even after she suffered there was more wrong done to her…. Fundamentally, what I hope that that consciousness raising produces is an intolerance of intolerance, a sensitivity or a new awareness of the game that’s being played…. And so… that’s how you and everyone who came to the vigil and everyone who saw the news report [reacted].  My hope is [that] on that level, that personal level, that it does spark those kinds of interactions where when our culture’s representation of transgender experience is brought to a fore, that people have a desire or a willingness, drive, to be able to address that appropriately.  (Williams)

David Valentine, in his 2007 book, Imagining Transgender, spends a chapter exploring the ways in which a theory of violence can be a useful tool for political activism for the transgender community.  He writes that “for violence to be understood as violence, a story must be told about it” (Valentine 228).  What this statement points to is also what Williams articulated to me at the end of our interview: that it is only in the recognition of the suffering of others and in the responses to that suffering on an innate, emotional level that violence can be properly addressed, condemned, and eliminated.  This personal level is precisely what those two sentences in the police report and media coverage of Myra Ical’s murder sought to distance themselves from and is a violent action because it is ultimately injurious to the transgender community and to the memory of Ical.   This created space, this aperture formed by stepping back, is an opening for political, social, and emotional responses of people protesting, making noise, and then closing the distance.

Works Cited“Displacing.”  Merriam-Webster Online.  < http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displacing>.“Transgender Community Seeks Answers to Murder | MyFoxHouston.com.” Web. 30 Mar 2010.  <http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100125-transgender-murder-victim-vigil>.GLAAD Media Reference Guide.  8th Ed.  January 2010.  <http://www.glaad.org/Document.Doc?id=99>.“Great Places in America: Neighborhoods.” Web. 21 Mar 2010. <http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/2009/index.htm>.“Houston Crime Maps | Super Neighborhood.” Web. 21 Mar 2010.  <http://houstoncrimemaps.com/neighborhood/>.Houston Police Department.  Press Release.  “Deceased Victim Identified in Incident at 4300 Garrott.”  20 January 2010.  < http://www.houstontx.gov/police/nr/2010/jan/nr012010-1.htm>.Lezon, Dale. “Houston police seek clues in death of man left in field.”  The Houston Chronicle (Chron.com). 20 January 2010.  <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6826157.html>.Transgender Foundation of America.  Library and Archive Home Page.  < http://www.tgctr.org/tg-library/>.

Valentine, David.  Imagining Transgender: An Ethnography of a Category.  Durham: Duke University Press, 2007.  Print.

Vogel, Chris.  “Ruben Dario Ical, 51 (a/k/a Myra Ical), Bayou Body Count No. 17.”  Houston Press.  20 January 2010.  <http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/01/cross-dresser_beaten_death.php#comments>.

Williams, Cristan.  Phone Interview.  23 March 2010.

Many of you know that Council Member Jones hosted a come to Jesus talk at City Hall between several community leaders and a Covenant House representative yesterday. If you follow my FaceBook, you know it was a really intense meeting that lasted almost 3 hours. The Covenant House representative made a number of claims about how GLB and especially T kids are treated there. These claims were in direct opposition to what many of us have witnessed over this last decade.

Since the Covenant House representative seemed dismissive of much of what we claimed to have observed over the years, I did a little secret shopping today.

So, today I called Covenant House intake as a secret shopper and was told that the policy is that TG kids are identified by what is on their ID – that staff will not use preferred names and/or pronouns. This is the exact opposite of what the Covenant House represented was true at the meeting yesterday at Council Member Jones’ office.

Additionally, I spoke to “Mr. Mike” in intake. I specifically asked to speak with him because I’ve had reports that he tends to treat TG kids more harshly than non-TG kids. When I asked if my MTF client would be recognized by their preferred name, he said, “they will be treated fairly.” When I asked if my MTF client had any chance whatsoever of being housed with the other females, he said, “they will be treated fairly.” When I asked if my MTF client would be recognized by their preferred gender pronouns, he said, “they will be treated fairly.” When I asked what he meant by fairness, he said, “fairness.” We went round and around. I would ask specific policy questions and he would dodge the question by saying that everyone is treated “fairly.” When I pointed out that his notion of fairness might be different than what the client’s notion of fairness was he said, “I’ve answered your question. They will be treated fairly.” When I asked if he could tell me what the policy was for working with transgender kids, he said CH does not discriminate and that everyone would be treated fairly. During the entire conversation, he never once answered my actual question.

Mr. Mark is perhaps one of the most hostile people I’ve ever spoken with in a professional capacity. I asked a couple of very simple, explicit questions. Instead of providing a simple answer, he decided to play a game with me by pretending to be obtuse. He could have said that he didn’t know, that he wasn’t sure or he could have said at the beginning of the call that I needed to speak to his supervisor or ED concerning questions of policy. Instead he chose to rebuff me, dodge my questions and infer that I was unreasonable to expect him to provide anything like a direct answer.

Had this been an actual call I was making on behalf of a real client, I would have ended it about 4 minutes into the conversation and I would have NEVER referred the client to him. By the 4 minute mark, it was obvious to me that he was playing a game. I was asking him to provide information and he was withholding information. It was a simple power game. The only reason I continued the conversation was because I wanted to know how far he was willing to take his power game.

“Fairness” is not an answer because it is not a quantifiable policy. Bullies believe that they are treating their victims fairly; the concept of fairness, unless actually defined, is largely meaningless where matters of policy are concerned. I literally had a headache after speaking with this man. I honestly shudder to think how power games like this plays out in real life with real kids.

Also, contrast Mr. Mike’s responses with the following two short videos. Here another staff (taken on the exact same day Mr. Mike give his answers), a different CH staff member gives me immediate straight answers:

Where do they put the kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIC_bTNilw0

How do they address the kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo4CSqIistA

I asked for Mr. Mike because some of the kids said that he’s a bully. I’ll let his own behavior speak for itself.

Watch the mind-numbing video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqvNrzjl1O4

NOTE: I called in character. For the purposes of this call, I was Stacy Willowbrook, a case manager with an organization names HACS. There is no case manager named Stacy Willowbrook who woks for HACS.