current issue | main page | infotainment | past editions | special events | classifieds...a-l | classifieds...m-z | feedback!
Dear Rip & Marsha:
I am writing first to say how grateful I am to you both for supporting me throughout my legal career here in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Your wonderful publication helped make it possible for me to serve the Baton Rouge Community. Regretfully, I am closing my offices in Baton Rouge and I am returning to my hometown of New Orleans. I will miss the many friends I have made in Baton Rouge, especially Mr. Richard Dykes, Mr. Damon Veach, Mr. George Schultz, Mr. & Mrs. Joe E. Thompson, Dr. Anne Whitehurst, Mr. Richard Bullock, everyone at George's Place, The Mirror Lounge, Traditions, The Blue Parrot, The Time Zone, The Hideaway, and the Krewe of Appollo, and most especially all of my many clients and friends who made my four happy and successful years of practice here in Baton Rouge so fulfilling.I leave Baton Rouge with many mixed emotions. It has been my home since 1989 and I have had the unique opportunity to represent some wonderful people such as Lewis Humphreys, David Floyd, Clyde Clark, Larry Brooks, and many others who are no longer with us, but all of whom I shall never forget!
And now, if you will allow me to do so, I would like to address my Baton Rouge friends and family as follows:
I want to send out the call to all of you in Baton Rouge to take up the banner of Lewis Humphreys's Food for Friends and not forget the many in our community who suffer from AIDS and still need us.I founded the Lewis Humphreys's Food for Friends effort seven years ago and was able (with the help of the Baton Rouge Community, Friends for Life, and the Krewe of Appollo) to supply the basic food needs of so many People With AIDS at a time when there was no "cocktail" treatment or other relief from the torture of this horrible illness.
I began Lewis Humphreys's Food for Friends when I was still a law school student. I could not have succeeded in the effort without the help of Mr. Richard Dykes of George's Place and all of the other community bars in Baton Rouge. I truly hope that further efforts in Lewis's name will continue after I am gone.
You see, our only quest in Baton Rouge has been for freedom, life, and human kindness. We are often criticized by the so-called "Christian Coalition" for lacking the values of love, charity, and respect for human life which they claim to respect. Yet, it has only been from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community that I have personally witnessed such values espoused. It is a shame that those who oppress us (the so-called followers of Christ) would devote so much effort and resources to condemn us. Such waste is a travesty when there are so many who suffer needlessly.
I have spent the last four years of my law career working to assist the poorest and most needy in our community. I invite members of the "Christian Coalition" to end their affiliation with what is really the "Christian Abolition" and work instead to help the weak, poor, and suffering. Jesus told you that what you do for such as these, you do for Him.
Thus, I regretfully announce the closing of my office in Baton Rouge. As I stated above, I send out my plea to the Baton Rouge Community to continue the work that was begun under Lewis Humphreys's Food for Friends.
I conclude with the sobering realization that the members of the organizations like the Christian Coalition will not cease their murderous, immoral, and insidious efforts simply because their hatred and evil agenda is brought to light. These hate and evil peddlers will only be stopped if we awaken to our precarious position in society.
Members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community are being denied housing, employment, property, liberty, and access to their children. Our successes in the race against AIDS should not result in our reduced efforts for success towards greater liberty and freedom as members of the human race.
Remember that it was not so long ago that these right wing "Christians" were publicly calling for all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans to be corralled in concentration camps so that we could not "infect their children." We do not need to wait for these "Christians" to put on their swastikas in order to awaken to the danger they pose to our free society.
Thus, I say goodbye to my hometown of Baton Rouge and leave my many friends with the challenge of the great work begun under the name of Lewis Humphreys. The challenge is as great today as it was when we began and my heart forever remains with my loved ones in Baton Rouge until we see that no one suffers from Al DS, no one looses their children, their job, or their home, and no one finds their life wasted due to shame they are made to feel by persons who have no respect for life, love, or liberty.
With all my love and hope to my beloved Baton Rouge Community, I remain Sincerely yours,
--Chad B. HamDear Editor:
I was very interested in the recent open letter from the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) National Field Director to the New Orleans community. I was dismayed to see HRC so easily dismiss their exclusion of transgendered people with the characterization of claims of exclusion as being misinformed allegations. It is unfortunate that HRC chose to dismiss the validity of the charges that HRC excludes transgendered people. Indeed, there are factual bases for the allegations. Instead of addressing the two issues which have been widely discussed in the local press. HRC chose to publish a skillfully crafted public relations message which is misleading. In view of the fact that the transgender community often feels like they are ignored and easily dismissed by HRC, this message, which begins with a paragraph which attempts to offhandedly dismiss the allegations, can only intensify feelings of mistrust between HRC and the transgender community.The controversy regarding the Human Rights Campaign's exclusion of the transgender community has focused on two issues HRC's mission statement excludes transgendered people and they continue to be opposed to including language in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would protect transgendered people in addition to providing protections for many gays and lesbians who are potential targets of employment discrimination of the basis of their failure to conform to stereotypical gender norms.
Despite rhetoric and public relations messages, the Human Rights Campaign continues to exclude transgenders from their mission statement. They also continue to be opposed to including language in ENDA to provide protections for transgendered people and gender non-conforming gays and lesbians. With the exception of advocating for transgendered people regarding federal legislation of Hate Crimes, HRC has mostly entertained the concerns of the transgender community via dialogue sessions. In certain instances, HRC chose to ignore requests for dialogue from individuals who wanted to discuss these issues. After watching the pattern of dialogue for several years, it is little wonder that many people conclude that HRC is stonewalling. It has been two and a half years since HRC told the transgender community that they needed time to educate their people, yet it was only in March 1998 that HRC decided to expose their Board of Directors to an educational session. This was after the issue of a withdrawal of financial support because of their exclusion of transgenders became an issue of concern to the Board of Directors. It certainly appears that HRC has been stonewalling.
During the December Town Hall Meeting, the National Field Director stated that HRC was opposed to including transgendered people in the mission statement because this change could not be accompanied with an authentic commitment by HRC to the transgender community. While this reason for not changing the mission statement has merit, the desire for authenticity does not seem to carry the same weight regarding their name and the organization's inability to be committed to human rights. As one individual discussed in a recent letter to the editor, under similar circumstances and with similar desires to focus only on gays and lesbians, the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights changed their name to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. Possibly a similar name change is appropriate for the Human Rights Campaign.
The Human Rights Campaign's public relations letter mentions that the Board of Directors' Diversity and Strategic Planning Committees have been asked to prospect inclusive language and programming. This is very honorable, however, no mention is made of any anticipated date when these committees will make formal recommendations to the Board of Directors. If their manner of handling transgender inclusion in ENDA can provide insight into how HRC is likely to respond, we know that when diversity issues have intersected with political strategy, political expediency has taken precedent. It would be informative to know when HRC expects to receive and act upon recommendations from these two committees. Will it be this year? next year? five years?
It is unfortunate that the issues brought forth by the transgender community are so easily framed as "transgender issues" which conflict with the political advancement of civil rights for gays and lesbians. In reality, legal protections for discrimination based upon gender non-conformity actually afford protections to many gays and lesbians, as well as, transgendered people. This fact has not received much recognition by HRC. The fact that gender identity is an issue of concern to gays and lesbians is brought to the forefront with the realization that children and youth may receive a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder and receive therapy to cure "prehomosexuality." This is despite the fact that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. If the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity are not related in any meaningful way, how can these children be diagnosed with gender identity disorder and how can the goal of therapy be to prevent the development of homosexuality? It may be beneficial to acknowledge that the divide between the transgender community and the gay and lesbian community is, in certain pragmatic respects, an artificial divide based upon identity and identity based politics. Identity based politics makes it possible for HRC to create an impression that all discrimination directed at gays and lesbians is based upon sexual orientation, while in fact, an equal proportion of the discrimination may be based upon the public's discomfort with their gender role and gender expression, areas which the courts have ruled are not protected by "sexual orientation" legislation.
The fact that HRC is committed to an amendment to ENDA to include protections based upon gender identity could be misinterpreted to mean that HRC is in favor of including transgenders in ENDA. This is misleading, HRC is opposed to including transgenders in ENDA and plans to introduce an amendment only after the non-inclusive ENDA passes. HRC committed to the amendment strategy in the Fall of 1995 after ENDA had been introduced in the 104th Congress. If they were committed to transgender inclusion in ENDA, HRC could have proposed revisions to ENDA before it was reintroduced in the 105th Congress. If ENDA fails to pass in this Congress there will be other opportunities to proposed more inclusive language in the bill. As long as HRC remains committed to an amendment to protect transgenders, we will not see any proposals to revise the ENDA language in a way which would make an amendment unnecessary. Currently, HRC can claim to be inclusive in their vision while simultaneously excluding transgenders from ENDA.
I congratulate HRC for their vision of forming a beneficial and committed relationship with the transgender community which crafts "a shared vision of a world that honors and respects all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity." I have concerns that they can forge such a relationship while they misrepresent their positions to the transgender community and to the public. It appears that HRC wants to create a public image of being inclusive while maintaining internal policies and positions which are clearly exclusionary.
Now that HRC has come out in local newspapers and stated that their vision is one of inclusion, and stated that the reality and substance of their work with the transgender community reveals their commitment to the transgender community, one may ask why, if they are substantially committed to inclusion, they resist including transgenders in their mission statement? How long can they continue to argue that they are inclusive while resisting taking a step which would help to dispel the "misinformation" that HRC excludes transgenders? So I pose these questions. If HRC is inclusive of the transgender community as they state in their public relations message, why do they resist changing the mission statement? If they take the other path and choose to be exclusive while focusing only on gay and lesbian concerns, why do they resist changing the name of the organization so that it does not create misleading impressions that their focus is on human rights? Or will HRC maintain the status quo and simply continue the current course and engage in self deception to convince themselves that they can be a human rights organization while excluding transgenders from their mission statement while using public relations messages to attempt to dispel claims that they are exclusive? Sincerely,
--Nancy SharpDear Editor:
When discussing the HRC dinner boycott with friends, I often get a response similar to that expressed by Troy Spicer in an earlier issue of Ambush: How did transgender issues become part of "our" agenda? While "we" don't wish "them" ill, why should "we" expend "our" resources to pursue "their" issues?The question betrays an historical blindness. HRC owes its existence to a chain of astonishing cultural events which gained momentum in the Stonewall Riots of June, 1969. The Advocate describes those events as "the night after Judy Garland's funeral, when, with their heightened emotions, the drag queens, along with a handful of butch dykes at the Stonewall Inn, came to the end of their patience with the police raids on Greenwich Village gay bars."
In other words, those we today call transgenders initiated the gay movement which produced HRC. Transgenders are not trying to "hijack" our movement; they created it. We are reaping the benefits of their personal acts of bravery on that summer night. The real question is, why are we now trying to shove them aside? There is, however, a frankly more self-serving reason why gays and lesbians should demand the inclusion of gender identity language at every opportunity. Consider an ENDA law which protects you against employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation. That law would not, however, protect you against discrimination based upon gender role infractions. Bluntly put, I may not be able to fire you because you sleep with men, but perhaps I can fire you if you are a bottom when you do it. "Passive" homosexuals transgress the gender boundaries demanded of men, and hence can be discriminated against on this basis. Every man who has ever been accused of being a "sissy," and every woman taunted for being a "tomboy," is guilty of gender infractions, and ENDA in its present form does not protect any of them, and HRC does not think that it should.
Transgenders may be at the extreme end of gender role transgressors, but long before we get there we have the effeminate male and the butch woman, some more so, others less. Unless we are prepared to abandon all of these persons as well, and to declare as a matter of policy that HRC and the law should be concerned only with homosexuals who in every way conform to their stereotypical gender role assignments (Are there any? When's the last time we saw a picture of Elizabeth Birch wearing a dress?), then inclusion of gender identity language is an absolute necessity. Not just for "them," but for "us" as well.
--James M. Donovan, Ph.D.Dear Editor:
Recent articles published locally by the HRC National Field Director reflect that the local HRC Dinner boycott is getting national attention. If only that national attention would be substantive in taking action which has been alluded to, but never delivered. Yes, the National Field Director acknowledges those Bisexual and Transgendered issues integral to the same issues facing Gay and Lesbian individuals. And true, HRC has established dialogs to address these issues with individuals within the local and national Transgendered communities. But nothing has actually happened. There have been no mission statement changes, no ENDA inclusion, and nothing to formally address these issues within any HRC literature.As a consequence, the boycott continues, with the unfortunate byproduct being the local alienation between friends, colleagues, and business associates. But the issue is deeper than wounding local rapport. Standing on the sidelines now, maintaining the status quo, appeasing the ambitions of others, not rocking the boat-it all sounds like Germany in the 1930's. While the HRC may lack the vision to see the ramifications of its inaction, the political right wing will see the shortcomings, and with the tried means of divide and conquer, it will be able to map its own path to the future.
--Diane Tanner, Vice-President, Gulf Gender Alliance[Letters and Comments should be sent to Ambush Letters, 828-A Bourbon St., New Orleans, LA 70116-3137; or, E-mail to webmaster@ambushmag.com]
current issue | main page | infotainment | past editions | special events | classifieds...a-l | classifieds...m-z | feedback!
Brought to you by
AMBUSHonLINE
Over 1.5 MILLION *hpm & 150,000 **uvpm
web rates | site stats
*hits per month **unique visitors per month
Copyright © 1996-1998 Ambush, Inc. All Rights Reserved ®
THE WEB TEAM:
Rip Naquin-Delain | Sonny Cleveland | George Patterson
828-A Bourbon Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70116-3137, USA
PH 1.504.522.8047 FAX 1.504.522.0907
