This was posted to a mailing list by Jessica
It is reposted her with her generous permission:
Published as a response to:
An Observation: People tend to judge, based upon the Outward Appearance
On the contrary, people judge on the basis of acceptance, or rejection, of the transgender loyalty oath.
In all the very respectful debate–most of the time–and more than any such in the past as I have observed it on this list, one thing stands out in the most graphic of ways, and with particular clarity in this post.
All those, such as myself, who call for the recognition of transsexual and transgender people, who call for an historical understanding of our oppression, who call, explicitly and REPEATEDLY, for equal treatment of ALL
transsexual and transgender people–are accused of demeaning and diminishing transgender people.
The only people I see who refuse to simply declare a commitment to equality for all, are those who give fealty to the transgender ideology–as if that enforced identity is all that is needed to ensure equality for all.
This notion of policed identity is the model of the gay rights movement that has not/is not proving very helpful for transsexual and transgender people in the United States; for all the noise that the, so-called, repeal of DADT
is what transsexual and transgender people need, very arguable, it is not arguable that it has filled the quota of LGBT legislation before the mid-terms. When the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congresses
disappear after the mid-terms, there is little likelihood anything trans inclusive will be passed.
In Canada, gay and lesbian people have long achieved their formal agenda and are less than enthusiastic to come back for transgender and transsexual people. I argue there is a lesson here for “all who care to note.”
I’m not sure how an enforced identity is working out in Arizona; I have just read that the “papers, please” law is supported across the United States–I hope I read wrong; though given American history, this certainly seems
Nor am I sure about how the notion of “melting pot” worked out for what we in Canada call First Nations/Aboriginal People, also.
Do you really believe basing a struggle for equality, even equity, on a lie is a productive way to proceed?
“But I really don’t fancy the notion of some elitist gatekeepers pompously blasting out a piece of the legislative or social Bridge to Equality that I need to get to where I aim to go in Life.”
Just who are the “elitist gatekeepers pompously blasting out” around here?
Just who are those laying out accusations about “not “worthy” of equal treatment”?
In my legislative work I accept the expediency of gender identity and gender expression; in practical fact this has already been well-established in Canadian human rights practice at the federal, provincial and territorial
level. We work now to raise the awareness of transsexual and transgender people, their different lives, needs–particularly health needs–by passing legislation.