Donna Rose responded on her website to my “Rose Colored Glasses” post by saying:
“One trans advocate blogger was quick to react (read his post here).”
His?
Wow, this isn’t starting off so well.
She continues:
“Last year there was indeed a problem. The trans-inclusive version passed in the House, which was a historic achievement in that it set a precedent that trans-inclusive legislation could indeed pass. However, Sen. Ted Kennedy, a co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate, would not agree to add the trans-inclusive language to his version of the bill. I was not a happy camper, but I chose to be patient to see how things would unfold. The bill died before it could come up for a vote, but the fact that HRC supported Sen. Kennedy despite his non-support for the trans inclusive language was a sore point for some, especially those looking for a reason to proclaim ‘Same Old HRC’”.
Sore point for some? If the bill would have passed, it would have excluded transgender people! The “Same Old HRC” comment isn’t even relevant since I kept my comparison set between the 2005 and 2007 bills. But it’s rather easy to throw me into a category of people that are “HRC haters” rather than address the actual content of my post.
You would say that you do not hear my voice. I would challenge that you’re simply choosing not to listen. The fact that the versions are the same and that we’re all in lock step this year to ensure this historic bill passes demonstrates that we ARE making progress. My voice is there, loud and clear, as an advocate for unity and equality. I stand by my statement and my commitment. One hundred percent. Do not thank Sen. Kennedy now if you feel it to be premature. Wait until next month. THEN, thank him. We need his support.
This is proof positive that Donna did not read my post. I said:
“In 2005 a sign on letter supported by more than 40 of Washington D.C.’s top national organizations was sent to Senator Kennedy’s office requesting that he introduce the fully inclusive House version of the Hate Crimes bill as an add on to the child safety act. HRC refused to sign the letter, saying they wanted to see the hate crimes bill in a conference committee where transgender-inclusive language could have been added. They refused to confront Kennedy on his non-inclusive bill; now the HRC is asking visitors to THANK Senator Kennedy for NOT BEING INCLUSIVE?!
Donna, if you’re listening, this shell game doesn’t seem like progress to me. It seems like the actions of an organization that is ashamed to advocate for transpeople. Look at HRC’s talking points for the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. You’ll see no mention of transgender people at all.”
As of yesterday, there was absolutely NO public knowledge that the House and Senate bill would be the same. When the House passed the bill last time around, Chris Matthews, a spokesperson for Sen. Smith, said that the Senate version would not be changed to include gender identity.
“The Senate works on precedent. This bill has good bipartisan support. The best thing for hate crimes legislation is for it to pass.”
Both HRC representatives that have commented on my previous post failed to address it’s main point. It’s deceitful to say that transgender people should thank Senator Kennedy for last years hate crimes bill. That with the fact that transgender people were absent in the HRC Hate Crimes talking points was another sign to me that things were going in the wrong direction.
Donna, I didn’t ask you to hear me, I ask you to listen. There’s a difference between the two….
P.S.
Donna you’re very pretty and apparently I don’t project a very feminine image. Could you give me some tips?
- Excited
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
Related posts:
I guess what i mean is, i wonder why it wasn’t fixed as “read her post here.” It’s easy to understand how someone dealing with these issues could become sensitive about pronouns, but avoiding it here, after it was already raised as an issue, strikes me as… peculiar.
She fixed it. I don’t think she did it on purpose, but it just goes to show you how shallow her writing research is. Most people in the transactivist community know who I am, if only from my days as on of the co-hosts of TSR Live!.
For the record, I prefer Marti, but female pronouns work
I see that “read his post here” has been replaced with “read the post here.” Maybe you’ve said elsewhere, and i’ve just missed it, that you prefer not to be addressed with female pronouns? Because i would hate to think that she’s being deliberately antagonistic here, but i’m not sure how else to read that.
I see that “read his post here” has been replaced with “read the post here.” Maybe you’ve said elsewhere, and i’ve just missed it, that you prefer not to be addressed with female pronouns? Because i would hate to think that she’s being deliberately antagonistic here, but i’m not sure how else to read that.
Seems to me you look just fine.
As for HRC, Tran inclusion and Kennedy that’s a whole different story.
Seems to me you look just fine.
As for HRC, Tran inclusion and Kennedy that’s a whole different story.
She fixed it. I don’t think she did it on purpose, but it just goes to show you how shallow her writing research is. Most people in the transactivist community know who I am, if only from my days as on of the co-hosts of TSR Live!.
For the record, I prefer Marti, but female pronouns work
I guess what i mean is, i wonder why it wasn’t fixed as “read her post here.” It’s easy to understand how someone dealing with these issues could become sensitive about pronouns, but avoiding it here, after it was already raised as an issue, strikes me as… peculiar.