There was a full room at the GENDA Forum that took place April 22nd, at the LGBT Community Center in New York City. The room was full with enthusiasm. This forum was strategically scheduled before the April 29th, LGBT Equality & Justice Day in Albany with the intention that the people that attends will also talk to the legislators asking for support for GENDA that purports to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression in the state of New York.

The forum was hosted by Ray Carannante, Associate Director, Center CARE, Coordinator, Gender Identity Project and moderated by Desma Holcomb, Empire State Pride Agenda. Panelists were,(in order of presentation):

Melissa Sklarz, Director, New York Transgender Rights Organization; Lourdes Hunter, Counselor and Case Manager, Housing Works; Gabriel Arkles, Staff Attorney, Sylvia Rivera Law Project; Elizabeth Rivera, Program Coordinator: TransJustice, Audre Lorde Project; and, Kenyon Farrow, Board Chair, Queers for Economic Justice

Panelist and longtime activist Melissa Sklarz presented a very complete historical context for the bill, as well as an honest assessment as to why the bill did not pass last time it was up for a vote. I do not think the forum, as it progressed, ever recognized Melissa Sklarz’ instrumental and relentless work in getting the bill to where it is at this moment in history.

Panelist Gabriel Arkles, staff attorney for the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, gave a clear, sober and informative presentation. His call for strong clear anti-discrimination laws was very exciting. He presented a fair, potent account of the state of current law and how necessary are strong, solid anti-discrimination protections in the state and supported it with some of the achievements made by the Sylvia Rivera Law project, benefiting from the inclusion of gender identity/expression categories to the anti-discrimination laws in the city of New York.

It was however Mr. Arkles’ warning and opposition to the hate crime component of the bill that dominated the rest of the panel presentations and discussion. I believe his opposition to the Hate Crime component of the Anti-Discrimination bill was supported by clear arguments as well as solid, undisputed facts.

Elizabeth Rivera, Program Director of TransJustice, an Audre Lorde Project program proceeded to also express support to the bill, admitting that until very recent (I suspect the same day) she did not know about the Hate Crimes component of the bill and then read a prepared statement from ALP stating their opposition to this type of legislation.

Last panelist, Kenyon Farrow, Board Chair, Queers for Economic Justice started his presentation by pointing out how important it is when doing this and other kind of political work to maintain the ability to build and support coalitions. He went on to discuss how he believes this type of legislation has been used by the Department of Justice to increase its persecution and incarceration of people in poor communities and communities of color. He also warned that Hate Crimes legislation are regularly and unfairly used precisely against the youth, the poor, the black, the brown and the transgender communities and the intersections of these communities.

Most of the Q&A went to people making statements against the Hate Crime component of the bill. One of the attendants asked how the provision “ slipped” into the bill. The panel moderator from ESPA, explained that the way the Hate Crime legislation is written, all categories added to the non-discrimination charter will be de-facto added to the Hate Crimes legislation. WHOA, only in the Law & Order regime we currently experience as “life in the USA” you can find such logic! In order to win protection from discrimination in employment, public accomodations and Housing, you have to expand the powers of the Department of Justice, so they can “enhance” sentences, (where the word enhance serves the same purpose it serves in “enhanced interrogation practices.” I think The Department of Justice’s record on race, LGBT issues, youth issues, class issues, and others has to improve a lot before we trust giving them more power.

Bill Dobbs, a gay activist that has opposed Hate Crime legislation since forever I remember asked Rep. Gottfried, who sponsors the bill, and who happened to be present, what did he think in listening from the organizations and the participants’ opposition to the Hate Crime component of the bill. Mr. Gottfried replied that it was “ unfortunate” and that he supports Hate Crime legislation. Seemed like yet one more case of an elected official that believes he/she knows more than his/her constituents and in that reasoning finds a justification to ignore his/her constituents requests or needs.

At one point someone from the public, asked the panelists if their position was “ Genda with no Hate Crimes component, or No bill at all. Mr. Arkles and Ms. Rivera did not fall for that bait, they both replied something like: (I am paraphrasing) “We continue to support the bill, but we are now aware that there is a lot of work we must continue to do and hopefully when the bill is ready to be passed all hate crime provisions will be out of it”.

I think the real scandal in this story is that many of these organizations and individuals (Cyborg included) have been supporting this bill for a long time, probably years, without ever reading it. There is a strong lesson to be learned here. We are all responsible for this.

I believe in the end of the night Melissa Sklarz, whom I respect a lot, may have felt disappointed. Melissa has been working very hard and has provided excellent leadership in lobbying the legislature to get TG protections to New York, as well as Federal protections through ENDA. It is my understanding she has been trying to involve for a long time into this work, the same organizations that last night expressed opposition to the Hate Crime component of the bill. If I was her, I would be furious.

While Cyborg was pleasantly surprised with the strong reactions from the public opposing the damn hate crimes provisions of this important bill, I did not enjoy the controversy. After all this is a bill we want to support and pass and some of us heard last night that the hate crime provision is added by default to any anti-discrimination bill or category. What a fucking high price to pay to get these protections!

For the record, Cyborg has been opposed to Hate Crime legislation for over a decade and supports the statements made from the panel against the hate crimes component of this bill.

This blogging thing is interesting. One thing is that you can’t predict what people will comment on. Much to my surprise, I’ve gotten reactions, from some very dear friends, that I would risk categorizing as “lefties”, to the little square that has the picture of Obama in it. Unfortunately, except for Chaco (soon may be a guest blogger here,) who did engage in a serious conversation with my alter ego, no one else tried to engage Cyborg Yoryie in a private or public conversation. Instead, it is usually a cynic, rather dismissive and/or condescending comment; something like, “you are now drinking the Obama Kool-Aid!” Of course, this comment or “joke”, does not pursue the idea of asking me why do I support Obama. In addition it does not take into consideration Cyborg’s extensive political background, as well as Cyborg’s academic history, which although it does not preclude the possibility that I may be drinking Kool-Aid, at least makes it suspect. As dear as these friends are to me, I can’t avoid thinking these dismissive jokes, come from far above me, from some place between the clouds where the truth, recluse and inaccessible to me, co-exists with them.

So…. I decided to compile “a la Letterman” my own list of reasons for which the Cyborg, MIGHT be supporting Obama, else than the ‘Kool-Aid theory.”

10. Cyborg is a Misogynist. PERIOD

9. Cyborg is not a misogynist but still hates Hillary.

8. Barack Obama is Black. PERIOD

7. Barack Obama is black and that in itself will create changes to the institution of the presidency regardless of who he is (and pray no one knows or forgot who Clarence Thomas is)

6. It is a strategy against Hillary, as soon as she loses the nomination Cyborg will take off the sign of support for Obama. ( See 10 & 9)

5. If Obama wins, Cyborg will have a “mucho” paying contract in his administration.

4. Cyborg is Obama’s long lost blood relative.

3. A god told me to do it (ok, that would be Kool-Aid)

2. Cyborg is a closet republican or a republican mole, trying to get the weakest candidate nominated.

1. Barack Obama looked sooooooooooooooo cute dancing with Ellen Degeneres! Yes, He Did!

Wow, it just occurred to the cyborg today while watching Body of War, that one of the possibilities of this blog is that I can promote a documentary! My good friend, Da Dobbs, recommended this wrenching documentary to me including a link to the Washington Post review of it. I’ll say at moments where it seems so many forces are so hard at work to make sure we forget we are at war, these type of documentaries are necessary, because the patriotic reaction to those forces that try to make us forget is to continue to pay attention to this war and to increase the pressure to end it.

This poignant documentary follows Iraq wounded veteran, now anti-war activist, Tomas Young, through his daily routines and political activism. Parallel to this, the documentary also shows the shameful moment in history in which congress abdicated its constitutional duties to the mad man in the white house. How pathetic to watch most senators act like parrots, repeating ad nausea anything that came out of the mad man’s born again mouth.

If this great documentary, is not in a theater close to you, call and ask for an explanation as to why is not being shown ans ask that your theater schedules it.

Below: A trailer of the documentary, an Interview with one of the directors, Phil Donahue.

I was perusing through Lady Bunny’s blog page, when I ran into the Ellen DeGeneres video addressing the murder of Lawrence King, 15 who was killed by a 16 year old classmate. I’ve seen the video in many other blog sites after that. I was genuinely touched by Ellen’s plea for all of us to “change the message” as well as for her important declaration, that neither Larry King, a 15 year old gender non-conforming adolescent (who self-identified as gay) nor herself, a 50 year old white gender non-conforming person are second class citizens. And, isn’t that what we all strive for? First Class Citizenship, not the other one(s). We know too well the differences. These differences are shoved in our faces most days of our lives. They are mainly shown to us through exclusions, exclusions from neighborhoods, exclusions from families, exclusions from peace, exclusions from better (or any) jobs, exclusion from political candidates’ speeches and national parties platforms, exclusion from the basic definition of human being. This list can go on, and on, and on.

But what is “the message” that must be changed? Or who is sending it? I propose the answer to this is very complex. Recently The Advocate tried to address the issue from a different perspective, wondering whether we, as a community (LGBT) are sending mixed messages. This effort, I am sure was as well intended as misguided, and has elicit several responses. However, I think is worthy to explore what messages our allies and we as a community are sending that may be supportive of the idea that gender non-conforming folks as well as trans folks are indeed second class citizens, therefore unworthy. This is where Senator Kennedy fits in this post. Senator Kennedy announced he will push ENDA in the senate without protections for trans or gender non-conforming folks. Bill Browning at The Bilerico Project asked the right question:

“George W has already said he’d veto the legislation. Today’s million dollar question? What’s the rush if it’s not going to make it into law to start with? Why alienate a large segment of the LGBT community? “

I propose that the issue of ENDA and the staunch opposition to include transgender protections from employment discrimination by some elected officials that we consider allies, as well as some LG groups indeed sends a message. It says to me that trans and gender non-conforming folks are indeed second class citizens even within their/our own communities.

The rift caused across our communities nationally as well as the angry tone (on both sides,) for or against gender expression protections in this legislation, contributes to an environment that may be more fertile for transphobes and their ilk, to act on their hate, or contempt of trans and gender non-conforming people. The opposition by congress to listen to a huge coalition of groups and individuals that demanded the restoration of protections to trans and gender nonconforming folks indeed sends the wrong message, it establishes a hierarchy, it shows who is disposable, it shows who we are willing to alienate.

We can make a list of groups we alienate, immigrants of color; people on the sex-work industry; homeless people, transgender people, poor people, and a common characteristic we will find is how much violence these groups face on a daily basis. The level of alienation from society and the lack of protections society extends to its first class citizens becomes evident as the violence becomes endemic to their being.

I am not saying Senator Kennedy, or Congressman Frank or even the Human Rights Campaign Fund, want this as a result of their dismissal of trans people. I am not saying that because of their unwillingness to stand up to trans phobia and gender expression discrimination, violence is inflicted on these groups. What I am saying is that every time a politician fails to stand up and include gender expression in a diversity curriculum in school, every time a politician says she/he does not “understand” this thing about gender expression, there is a message. Every time an executive director goes back in his words and refuses to use his/her organization’s resources to include transgender people and there is NO consequences, there is, again the message, loud and clear: Transgender people are expendable; we will not go the extra mile for them; we can lie to or betray them without serious consequences; these messages whether intended or not can contribute to the climate of intolerance against transgender individuals. I’ve seen some very angry letters demanding restoration of transgender protections to ENDA, I have also seen some very hateful letters opposing it. In such climate of intolerance, violence thrives. We should be aware of this.

p.s. For the record Cyborg Yoryie only supports a strong ENDA with protections for gender identity and expression included in the legislation.